ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Decarbonisation

Joan Walley: If he will set a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

Chi Onwurah: If he will set a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030. [R]

Karl Turner: If he will set a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

Edward Davey: I agree that there should be a power sector decarbonisation target for 2030. That is why the Government are legislating so that a decarbonisation target range can be set in 2016, once the fifth carbon budget has been set. When that target has been set, we believe it will be the world’s first such legally binding decarbonisation target.

Joan Walley: I am interested to hear that the Secretary of State agrees with me. We have all-party support for the Climate Change Act 2008, a recommendation from the Committee on Climate Change that the target for clean power should be set now, rather than later, and a Bill going through Parliament that could get rid of all the uncertainty. By delaying this decision until 2016, is he not simply creating greater investor uncertainty, risking green jobs and kowtowing to the Chancellor?

Edward Davey: I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Lady, now that she has told people that she will not be standing at the next election. She has been a doughty champion of green issues in the House. However, I do not believe that this short delay of two years will have the impact that she describes. She should remember that we have the EU 2020 targets for energy efficiency, renewables and emissions; the Climate Change Act, with the carbon budgets running up to 2027; and the Energy Bill which provides the most secure framework, the levy control framework going up to 2020, and
	industrial strategies. This country is arguing for the most ambitious 2030 greenhouse gas emissions target of any EU member state. It is just not true that investors think that this Government are not committed to this issue.

Chi Onwurah: This Government talk loudly, and at times obscenely, about the costs of decarbonisation, but they say little about the benefits, such as the potential for green jobs on Tyneside, which leads the world in clean power. If the delay is not causing the lack of investment, why has investment in clean energy fallen by billions of pounds since this Government came to power? And what is the Secretary of State going to do to bring more green jobs to Tyneside?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady should not talk down the sector or her own area. She ought to know, because we have debated the matter at the Dispatch Box, that £31 billion has been invested in renewable electricity since 2010. We have doubled the amount of renewable electricity generation since we came to power.

Karl Turner: Does the Secretary of State agree that setting a decarbonisation target for 2030 would greatly assist the much needed investment in Hull by Siemens? Or does he agree with the Prime Minister that this is all just “green crap”?

Edward Davey: The whole Government, working with colleagues like the hon. Gentleman, are doing our very best to ensure that we get that supply chain investment in the UK for our green sector. He knows that we are working with him and other hon. Members from Hull to do just that.

David Mowat: The Secretary of State will be aware that the UK now has among the lowest emissions per capita and per unit of GDP in Europe. For example, they are 25% lower than those of Germany, which has just embarked on a programme of building coal power stations. Is there anything more we can do to help our European partners have any kind of meaningful targets?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are working with all our EU partners to raise ambition in the EU. This Government have proposed that we should have an EU target of a 40% reduction in domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and be prepared to go up to 50% if we can get a global deal in 2015. We are leading the way in Europe on ambition.

Nick Harvey: My right hon. Friend will have noted that progress towards the decarbonisation goal was interrupted this week by the withdrawal of the Atlantic Array offshore wind project off the north Devon coast. Is he concerned that if that were to be followed by other decisions by utility companies to withdraw from such schemes, we could lose control of those critical national infrastructure decisions? Is he content with a situation in which the big six and foreign utilities effectively have a veto over those critical investment decisions?

Edward Davey: I do not see it quite as my hon. Friend does. We were initially disappointed when the decision on the Atlantic Array was announced, but when we learned that it was for technical reasons and that the
	further analysis of the seabed that was needed would have increased the cost, we understood why it had been taken. My hon. Friend should be reassured, because the number of applications that we have received for final investment decision-enabling contracts for difference—the “go early” CFDs—has far exceeded our expectations. I believe that there will be some good news on offshore wind shortly.

Julie Elliott: As has been said, RWE pulled the plug on the 240 turbine, 1.2 GW wind farm in the Bristol channel this week, saying that it was not the right time to invest, although I accept that it also cited some technical reasons. That is the pattern with this Government: investment has gone down from £7.2 billion in 2009 to a point where it is expected to be £1.9 billion this year. Nearly four of the five projects coming on line since 2010 were started under Labour. Does the Secretary of State accept that his refusal to adopt a 2030 power generation decarbonisation target now is scaring away investment, damaging green jobs and jeopardising our future energy security?

Edward Davey: That, of course, is absolutely not the case. If anything is damaging green jobs, it is the Leader of the Opposition and his irresponsible position on freezing energy prices. That has had a damaging effect on investment, and the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) knows it. We have a very good record in this area, and I am looking forward to making more announcements of more investment.

Switching Suppliers

Alan Reid: What assessment he has made of the process involved when a Scottish and Southern Energy customer on its “Total Heating, Total Control” tariff tries to switch to another electricity supplier.

Michael Fallon: The ability to switch supplier is a key driver of a competitive market, and it is important that we address areas where this is difficulty. I therefore welcome the opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend the particular difficulties faced by customers on the “Total Heating, Total Control” tariff.

Alan Reid: The Government are right to encourage people to switch their supplier to get a better deal. However, consumers on SSE’s “Total Heating, Total Control” tariff find in practice that they cannot switch because wiring and meters need to be changed and other suppliers simply do not want to know. What can my right hon. Friend do to make it easier for these consumers to switch?

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend is right to say that customers who have dynamic teleswitched meters inevitably have a narrower choice of supplier. It is therefore all the more important that Ofgem ensures that the tariffs they are on are kept reasonable. I would like to discuss further with him how we might help those particular customers to switch more easily.

Michael Weir: Following on from what the Minister just said, one reason why people want to switch from this tariff is that they are finding that
	although the headline increase announced by the company is high enough, they are being quoted sometimes twice that increase in their electricity prices. Is there anything he can do to press Ofgem as to why there is such a huge increase in this tariff?

Michael Fallon: I shall certainly do that. When Ofgem last looked at this tariff, it thought that the price was reasonable compared with some other time-of-use tariffs offered by other suppliers, such as Economy 7. However, I am very happy to take the matter up again with Ofgem.

Robert Smith: In taking the issue up with Ofgem, the Minister needs to emphasise just how trapped these people feel. They feel that they cannot shop around and they want to be completely reassured that they are getting the fairest deal possible. In the long run, will he examine whether it would be worth accelerating and prioritising the roll-out of smart meters for these customers to make it easier for them to switch?

Michael Fallon: As I have said, it is not satisfactory that dynamic teleswitched meter customers have a choice of fewer suppliers than other customers, although there are technical reasons for that. I am happy to take this matter up again with Ofgem to see what we can do to make it easier for such customers to switch.

Bill Esterson: A number of my constituents who have switched recently have been hit by significant charges—in one case, thousands of pounds. Given that switching is the Government’s main policy on energy, what can they do to ensure that mistakes are not being made by energy companies and that there is a fair deal for all customers who switch?

Michael Fallon: If the charges are at that level, it is clearly unacceptable. We will look at this with Ofgem to make sure that everybody is entitled to a choice— everybody is entitled to switch—and if there are particular difficulties with dynamic teleswitched meters, they need to be looked at.

Green Levies

Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the level of green levies; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Davey: I have had a number of representations on the level of green levies, and the Government expect to make a statement on the conclusions of our current review shortly.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. There is concern not only about the increase of the green levies, but about a lack of choice in where the green levies go. Is it feasible that on a household energy bill there could be a box for people to tick to show their preferred renewable to support?

Edward Davey: We certainly want to ensure that we are doing everything to help consumers; that is why we are having this review. The hon. Lady’s proposal might create a little more uncertainty than we are trying to achieve and we need certainty for the investment.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State stand up to the Conservatives on this? There is no doubt that the Conservatives are using the green levy as a fig leaf. The fact is that we need an intelligent policy that delivers great environmental change in our country; he should not let the Tories defer that.

Edward Davey: My colleagues and I will stand together. On the green levy review, we need to do all we can to help consumers with energy bills and I should have thought that the Opposition supported that, but I have made it clear that we will not do that on the backs of the fuel poor—we will keep our support for them in the levy—and that we will ensure that there is investment in renewable energy.

Tessa Munt: Will the Secretary of State ensure that in any review of the green levies measures are taken to protect the fuel poor, particularly those in rural Somerset?

Edward Davey: The House will be pleased to know that the social and green levies protect everybody, whether they are in rural Somerset or anywhere else in the country. On a number of occasions, I have made clear in this House and elsewhere my commitment to maintain the support for the fuel poor.

Nicholas Dakin: Why is the Secretary of State persisting with the carbon price floor tax, which is unilaterally damaging core foundation industries such as steel and chemicals, when even his predecessor says it has no green benefit and is simply about lining the Chancellor’s pocket?

Edward Davey: The Chancellor introduced the carbon price floor at the beginning of this Parliament and confirmed the rates in the Budget this year. The purpose is to send a clear incentive message to people investing in low carbon, which I believe the hon. Gentleman supports. I also hope that he supports the compensation package this Government have put together to help energy-intensive industries, to support them and to help them defray those costs.

Tom Greatrex: One element of the levies applied to consumer bills funds the renewables obligation certificate payments, as the Secretary of State knows. He will also be aware that a third of those payments go to generators in Scotland, but, with 8.4% of the consumer base, they are funded by bill payers across Britain. When Infinis, a Scottish-based renewables generator, published its flotation prospectus a couple of weeks ago, it cited the outcome of separation as one of its key risks. On Monday, the nationalists in Edinburgh published their plan for Scotland to separate from the rest of the UK, asserting that
	“shared support for renewables and capital costs of transmission among consumers in Scotland and the rest of the UK”
	would continue. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that that will definitively be the case?

Edward Davey: I cannot, of course, guarantee that. Should Scotland decide to vote for independence, there would have to be a negotiation. We cannot prejudge that negotiation, not least because despite the publication by the Scottish Executive this week, there was a lack of detail on some key elements. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out to the House and the country that if Scotland votes for independence and there can be no guarantee of support for renewables in Scotland from English, Welsh and Northern Irish consumers, Scottish consumers and industry could see price rises.

Energy Efficiency

Caroline Lucas: What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of energy efficiency to reducing energy costs.

Gregory Barker: Since 2010, more than 4.8 million insulation measures have been installed through Government schemes. For the average home, installing such measures can typically save between £25 and £270 on an annual energy bill.

Caroline Lucas: This week, we have heard that excess winter deaths are up 29% on last year, with up to 31,000 excess winter deaths. That should be a national scandal. Why, in that context, have the Government abolished the duty to eliminate fuel poverty, why will he not agree to amend the Energy Bill to include mandatory minimum energy efficiency standards for the homes of low-income households, and will they reverse their opposition to a binding EU 2030 energy efficiency target?

Gregory Barker: I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about the winter deaths, but one has to say, being very objective about it, that there was a clear link between influenza and those deaths in the last period looked at.
	We cannot be complacent about the impact of cold homes. That is why we have a national energy efficiency strategy—we are the first Government ever to have such a strategy—and why we have an ambitious public and market-based programme to roll out energy efficiency across the housing stock.

Philip Hollobone: If we really want to target help with energy bills on those who need it most, why do we not insist through building standards that all new build social housing has solar panels on the roof?

Gregory Barker: I am not unsympathetic to that idea, but the responsibility for building standards rests with the Department for Communities and Local Government. We have zero-carbon homes, but the key challenge for this country is the existing housing stock in which the vast majority of people live now and in which they will live for decades to come. The real challenge for us is not to build relatively few great homes but to retrofit the entire housing stock, to the benefit of everyone.

Jonathan Reynolds: Following that answer and speculation in the press today, does the Minister accept that cutting the energy company obligation by extending the deadline for
	companies to meet it would punish the companies that have so far sought to meet the obligation, cause serious job losses in the insulation industry and, most important, leave vulnerable people who have been promised that they will have that work done sitting in the cold this Christmas?

Gregory Barker: I cannot prejudge any announcement that will be coming shortly, but it is clear to all of us that Labour stands for what is effectively a green poll tax. It is right behind regressive levies on bills; it has no interest in driving value for money. The coalition is standing up not just for green values but for green value for money. Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, we recognise that £112 on bills matters to hard-working families, and if we can get better value from green measures we will extract it. Only the coalition will ensure that we get good value as well as meeting our green targets.

David Amess: Question No. 5, Mr Speaker.

Gregory Barker: With permission, I will answer this question and questions 5, 9, 13, 18, 20, and 21 together.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is a little confused. I will try to rescue him. We have been advised of the desire of the Government to link questions 5, 6, 12, 13 and 14, and I am sure that that is what the right hon. Gentleman really has in mind. I should say for the benefit of the House that the reason why we cannot group questions 18, 20 and 21 is that they do not exist.

Gregory Barker: I apologise, Mr Speaker, and stand corrected.

David Amess: What steps he is taking to ensure the UK leads the way in energy efficiency. [R]

Wayne David: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Chris Evans: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Grahame Morris: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Ian Murray: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Gregory Barker: Driving household energy efficiency take-up to help consumers control their energy bills is at the heart of our approach, and with policies such as the green deal we have established the conditions to grow energy efficiency markets in Great Britain. Thousands of innovative businesses are
	investing in this new market, and more than 100,000 consumers have begun the green deal improvement journey to make their homes more efficient.

David Amess: As the promoter of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, may I ask my right hon. Friend to join me in commending National Energy Action for its efforts to encourage people to be energy efficient and help to eliminate fuel poverty?

Gregory Barker: I certainly commend the NEA. I was delighted to attend its annual reception on Tuesday. I also commend my hon. Friend, whose record on fighting fuel poverty is second to none in the House. He has long been a champion of the fuel poor. We continue to work hand in hand with the NEA, developing the energy saving network. The Department has provided £900,000 to fund the creation of the network and the NEA is developing and delivering training to 500 energy advisers, and that is in addition to the community action awards on which we are also working with the NEA.

Wayne David: Earlier in the year the Minister said that he would have sleepless nights if his target of 10,000 people signing up to the green deal before the end of the year was not met. We are almost at the end of the year; is he preparing for a period of prolonged insomnia?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I did anticipate around 10,000. The number of people taking up finance so far has been significantly lower—about 1,200 as of last month. However, the extraordinary thing is that over 100,000 homes have had green deal assessments, and the compelling response has been that over 80% of the people who have had a green deal assessment are installing measures. If consumers like the green deal and the products and if they are installing the measures, the fact that they are not yet using the finance does not worry me. I am delighted that over 100,000 green deal measures are being installed in people’s homes. It is fantastic news.

Chris Evans: Joyner PA in my constituency has been providing wall insulation to people in Islwyn for over 30 years, making homes energy-efficient. When I visited the company last Friday, I was told that applying for Government green schemes is slow and bureaucratic. What are the Government doing to address that?

Gregory Barker: I am not sure which particular schemes the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but if he would like to write to me, I would be happy to address his queries or concerns in detail. I take on board what he says about bureaucracy. That is why we have got rid of the community energy saving programme, which we inherited from the previous Government and which was incredibly bureaucratic. That is why we are looking to make the energy company obligation and the green deal less bureaucratic and as easy to understand for the consumer as possible. We will continue to iterate both schemes to make them as consumer-friendly as possible.

Grahame Morris: May I draw the Minister’s attention to a Lords amendment to the Energy Bill, which we will consider next Wednesday, regarding measures to tackle
	fuel poverty and using the energy efficiency certificates as a means of targeting help at the poorest households? Will he give some consideration to accepting that, or a form of it, as a way of targeting help at the poorest?

Gregory Barker: The Energy Bill is on course for Royal Assent and it is very important that it does not get held up. It has been considered in both Houses. It is absolutely imperative for unlocking investment that we proceed with passing the Bill as a matter of urgency, so we remain committed to that. I am always looking for new ideas on energy efficiency, but I think that we have in place the most robust framework and the most ambitious strategy that any Government have had, but we continue to look to improve that.

Ian Murray: Despite the Minister having slight problems with the question numbers, we know that he is exceptionally numerate, so can he tell the House how many households have actually had work done, according to his Department, under the green deal?

Gregory Barker: There were 1,173 plans in the system, as of October, and 594 are having measures installed and 219 at the end of October—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Afford the Minister a courteous hearing. Let us hear the rest of his answer.

Gregory Barker: Opposition Members might have had a bit too much Red Bull this morning.
	The figure was 219 at the end of October, but that is the number of measures installed using finance. The really exciting thing is that tens of thousands of green deal measures have been installed, with people using the cash-back or their own money. So compelling is the green deal that people want all the savings now. If people want to take all the savings now by recognising that green deal measures are a great investment, that is a good thing. We will continue to improve the finance offer, but the green deal is up and running and it is a long-term programme.

Duncan Hames: Earlier this month I was fortunate to hear a presentation to the Transcoco—Transition Community Corsham—group in Corsham by an early adopter of the green deal. Although he was satisfied with the payback period on his green deal loan, what was striking from his presentation was that the assessment revealed some pretty fundamental flaws in his home’s energy insulation, despite the fact that it was built less than 10 years ago. Will the Minister speak with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about the enforcement of the existing building standards on new housing developments, because the failure to do that is costing ordinary people a lot in their bills?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is right. For 13 years, under the previous Government, there was lamentable enforcement of building standards. In fact, none of us can think of a single case that was prosecuted. He makes a very valid point. I will talk with my right hon. and hon. Friends in DCLG to see what more we can do to ensure that standards are adhered to.

Energy Costs

Karen Lumley: What steps he is taking to help consumers reduce energy bills.

Edward Davey: The Government are providing help to consumers with energy bills in three basic ways: through direct financial support, with energy efficiency initiatives, and by boosting competition. In 2012-13, with the winter fuel payment, with the warm home discount, and with cold weather payments, the Government spent over £2.5 billion on direct subsidies to reduce bills. With the energy company obligation and the green deal, we are helping consumers to reduce bills permanently. Along with Ofgem, our policies in the retail and wholesale markets are intensifying competition to help consumers reduce their bills this winter and every winter.

Karen Lumley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the people of Redditch want are fair and firm energy policies, in the realisation that no Government can fix international oil and gas prices, despite what they are being told locally by the Opposition?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is a complete con to pretend that fixing prices is going to help with bills, because no Government proposing or implementing that could fix the prices before or after the freeze period. The price freeze offered by the Opposition is not just a con but would not work.

Albert Owen: Small businesses are important customers, and many have had huge energy price rises. They do not have the opportunity to switch easily; they do not even have a comparison website in order to look at what at other companies are offering. What are the Government going to do about this? Will they look seriously at helping small businesses with very poor margins, many of which are going under because they cannot afford energy costs?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have been working very hard on this with No. 10 and with small business organisations and looking at the real issues—for example, the automatic roll-overs that cause so many problems. We are gaining agreements with the industry to stamp out these bad practices and to help small businesses.

Tobias Ellwood: A quarter of our energy needs were once met by nuclear power, but that is no longer the case because six of the reactors that closed down under Labour Governments were not replaced. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be fair to say that energy bills are tougher to control because we are now over-reliant on imported fuel sources in order to make sure that our generators are fuelled?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The main reason people’s fuel bills have gone up over the past few years is that there has been a huge increase in wholesale gas prices, which accounts for 60% of the increase in people’s bills. We are becoming more dependent
	on imports of gas, and that is partly to do with the fact that the previous Government failed to make the essential investments that this country needs.

Caroline Flint: I know that the Secretary of State will share the whole House’s concern about the number of excess winter deaths last year, and it is revealing that 80% were among the over-75s. On 12 January 2012, Labour tabled a motion calling for the energy companies to put all those over 75 on the cheapest tariff, but sadly the Government opposed it. Given that the evidence clearly shows that the over-75s are least likely to be on the lowest tariff, most likely to live in poorly insulated properties and most vulnerable to the cold weather, will he reconsider and make the energy companies put all those over 75 on the cheapest tariff in time for winter?

Edward Davey: Of course the excess winter deaths figures are disturbing. I think that every Member and every party in this House is committed to tackling this, not least because it is a problem that every Government have faced. The solution lies in a combination of policies—health policies, social care policies, housing policies and energy policies. That is why our fuel poverty strategy, which we will publish early in the new year, is a cross-Government attempt to make sure that we are tackling the real problem. I am afraid that once again the right hon. Lady is offering a simplistic solution, and she forgets that this Government have already acted with Ofgem to make sure that everyone is put on the lowest available tariff.

Caroline Flint: To be very clear, our policy is about putting all those over 75 on to the cheapest tariff regardless of how they pay and regardless of whether they are online, which is one of the factors preventing them from getting the cheapest tariff. The Secretary of State’s policy does not affect 90% of people and will still leave those over 75 who are not online and do not pay by direct debit paying more than other people. I remind him that in his own constituency nearly 8,000 people over 75 would save up to £200 as a result of our policy. For those people, and for 4 million like them around the country, why will he not make the energy companies put them on the cheapest tariff and refocus the ECO budget on those living in fuel poverty?

Edward Davey: Because we are doing more for the elderly. This Government brought in the warm home discount, which is taking £135 off the bills of the poorest pensioners. That is real action, taking money directly off their bills. We will certainly take no lectures from the right hon. Lady.

Robert Halfon: My right hon. Friend will be aware that consumers pay £60 extra on their energy bills because of VAT rates. Will he seek to renegotiate our VAT with the European Union so that we can get control over it and cut our energy bills?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend gives me too much credit, because I am not in charge of VAT. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to what my hon. Friend says, but he sets even the Chancellor a tall order by wanting him to renegotiate the sixth VAT directive.

Green Policies

Kevin Brennan: What recent assessment he has made of the Government’s progress on implementing green policies.

Edward Davey: There has been huge progress in this area. In the Energy Bill, we are building the world’s first ever low-carbon electricity market and have already seen renewable electricity generation double. To date, the UK Green Investment Bank has committed £740 million of public money to projects in a range of green sectors, including waste, offshore wind and energy efficiency, helping to mobilise an additional £1.9 billion of finance from the private sector. From the largest investment in the railways since Victorian times to our leadership on climate change in Europe and the world, our record in this area is a vast improvement on the past.

Kevin Brennan: According to EUROSTAT, we were one of only four countries in the EU 27 whose carbon emissions went up in 2012. They went up by 3.9%. That cannot be right, can it, if this is the greenest Government ever? Is the Secretary of State’s new slogan, “Vote yellow, go blue”?

Edward Davey: If the hon. Gentleman looks at our work over this Parliament, he will see that we have been reducing carbon emissions. It is true that last year there was a small increase, because we have been burning more coal than anyone expected. As a result of shale gas, the United States has been exporting its coal. That is why this Government are working so hard to reform the EU emissions trading scheme, to make sure that we send signals so that the same amount of coal is not burned in future.

Andrew George: In order to be able to both maintain the hundreds of thousands of green jobs in this country and to secure hundreds of thousands more, the Government need to reassure the renewables sector and major investors through consistent messaging and certainty. Is my right hon. Friend able to reassure me that such messaging is certain and secure not only in his Department, but across all levels of other Government Departments, including the Prime Minister?

Edward Davey: It is interesting that when the Energy Bill received its Third Reading in this House, only eight Members voted against it. All the Front Benchers of all parties bar one—and that party has only one Member—voted for the Bill. I think that sent a sign, not just from the Government, but from this whole House and across the British political system that this country supports investment in renewables.

Meg Hillier: The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) talked earlier about good value for green money, but the green deal has been a complete failure. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the enormous amount of money spent on this complex, bureaucratic project that has delivered no results?

Edward Davey: A scheme that has already led to 100,000 assessments and a huge number of very good satisfaction ratings from people acting on those surveys is a success. When the Labour party talks down the green deal, let us remember what it is doing: it is talking down reductions in carbon emissions and action on fuel poverty. It should be ashamed.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of this Government’s many achievements has been to create an economic framework for innovative firms to start developing new ways in technology to improve our green performance so that our green economy is alive and well, generating jobs and producing good results on CO2 reduction?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just my Department that has been involved in investing in research and development and technological innovation, vital though that is in our area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has ensured investment in ultra-low emission vehicles. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is investing in the railways in a way that has not happened since the Victorians. We have a very proud record of investment, both in infrastructure and in innovation and technical development.

Mark Lazarowicz: RenewableUK published a report today on offshore wind. It recognises what the Government have done, but it also warns:
	“Industry is facing a hiatus in confidence that the large scale economic rewards associated with sustained high delivery levels will be achieved.”
	We have heard warnings about the Atlantic array and there are signs elsewhere that offshore wind might not get the increase in deployment that was hoped for and expected. May I ask the Secretary of State not to be complacent about the issue and recognise the real problem faced by the industry?

Edward Davey: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am certainly not complacent, but I am aware of major investments that we believe will go forward, and that will reassure the industry and the supply chain. We already have the world’s largest deployment of offshore wind, and we are already recognised by Ernst and Young as the top place in the world in which to invest in offshore wind. With the Energy Bill going through the House with cross-party support, that gives a real signal to investors in offshore wind.

Energy Security

David Rutley: What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s energy security.

Michael Fallon: We published the annual “Statutory Security of Supply” report last month. National Grid is preparing stronger balancing measures for the short term. We plan to run a capacity market auction next year for the medium term. Beyond that, we are incentivising new infrastructure, including new nuclear, through the Energy Bill.

David Rutley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on agreeing terms for the first new nuclear power station since 1995, which is in marked contrast to the previous Government’s failure to replace ageing power stations. Will he tell the House what other steps the Government are taking to find additional sites further to secure and improve UK energy security?

Michael Fallon: It is very telling that in the year that Hinkley Point will come on stream—2023—eight of the nine existing plants will be off the system, unless their lives are extended, which shows the legacy of under-investment that we have to face. There are now proposals for 12 reactors in total, spread over five different sites.

Nick Smith: A quarter of our power supply will go off line in the next decade, so why is investment in new, clean energy infrastructure on course for a new low?

Michael Fallon: Since this Government came to office, five new gas plants have come on to the system and another is being built at Manchester, while two large wind farms opened this year and four more are under construction, and we have agreed terms, as we have heard, for the first new nuclear station in a generation. All that investment would be put at risk by the threat of price controls from a future socialist Government.

Sellafield

Katy Clark: Whether the Government overruled the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on the decision to extend the contract with Nuclear Management Partners to run Sellafield; and if he will publish all the relevant documents.

Michael Fallon: The contract review process and the decision to renew were the responsibility of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Given the importance of Sellafield, Ministers were kept fully informed, and we endorsed the decision to extend the contract, which gives Sellafield the opportunity to build on the progress made so far.

Katy Clark: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he publish the documents in relation to this decision? Will he agree to meet me and any other interested MPs to discuss the Government’s relationship with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, given some of the decisions that will be taken over the coming period?

Michael Fallon: I am always happy to meet any colleagues from the House, and I am certainly happy to meet the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to discuss the performance of the company at Sellafield. I think that she is referring to the KPMG report, which was commissioned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and its use and disclosure—whether or not it should be published—is the responsibility of the authority.

Rural Energy Costs

David Heath: What steps he is taking to reduce energy costs for residents in rural areas.

Michael Fallon: The Government have worked with industry to co-ordinate the “Buy oil early” campaign, which I launched in September, and to provide guidance on setting up or joining oil-buying groups. We also provide assistance to the most vulnerable consumers via the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments.

David Heath: Will the Minister bear in mind that those of us who live in the countryside very often live in old houses with solid or rubble-built walls, and very often in areas of water incursion? We cannot benefit from dual fuel tariffs, and we often rely on liquefied petroleum gas or fuel oil, which is cripplingly expensive. May I just remind him that people in rural areas have no ambition to be cold, damp and forgotten?

Michael Fallon: I assure my hon. Friend that those people have certainly not been forgotten. We have particularly addressed the issue of off-grid customers through publicising the adoption of a code of conduct so that petroleum suppliers treat their customers fairly. Ofgem is considering whether heating oil is properly covered by its consumer protection measures. We are working with the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group to improve the information available on vulnerable customers so that all the different agencies better understand where those customers live.

Peter Bone: I thank the Minister for his comments. Is he aware that there are constituencies such as mine that are regarded as urban areas, but that contain substantial rural areas? The people in those rural areas are sometimes overlooked in this regard.

Michael Fallon: I understand that. My hon. Friend is a great champion of his constituents, whether urban or rural. There are off-grid consumers in suburban and more urban areas. We treat all consumers equally. I encourage him to look at the guide to keeping warm this winter that the Secretary of State has sent to all Members on how we can best promote such matters in our constituency.

Topical Questions

Paul Maynard: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: I recently published the annual energy statement, which focuses on security of supply and on competition in energy markets. Since then, I have focused on driving forward our ambitious agenda for more competition. For example, I held a recent round table with industry leaders and consumer groups to consider the practical steps that we need to take to deliver faster and easier switching for consumers. There have been significant new investments in renewable energy and I expect to make further announcements on that shortly.
	Finally, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and I recently
	attended the global climate change talks in Warsaw, where a good agreement was reached that put in place the foundations for the critical talks in Paris in 2015 and established a work programme to prepare for them.

Paul Maynard: The Secretary of State will be aware that we will shortly lose more than 12 GW of generating capacity at oil and gas-fired power stations due to EU directives. What consideration has he given to placing those power stations in our strategic national energy reserve, in order that we can retain them for when we most need them in the coming years?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. However, power stations that have opted out under the large combustion plant directive must close by the end of 2015. The directive provides no derogation from that requirement. As a safeguard against the risk of low capacity, National Grid has consulted on a new system of balancing services to procure additional capacity in the winters of 2014-15 and 2015-16 if it is needed.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) asked an important question about the impact of the carbon price floor on energy-intensive industries. Those industries are concerned that they are not getting the compensation that the Secretary of States suggests they are getting. May I ask the Secretary of State about the carbon price floor again? Who does he agree with—his deputy, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who said that it was an “absurd” waste of money and “assisted suicide” for British manufacturers, or his Liberal Democrat predecessor Chris Huhne, who said,
	“We do not need it to drive decarbonisation… It was a straightforward revenue-raising measure by the Tories”?

Edward Davey: The idea that energy-intensive industries are not getting some of the support is not true. Payments under the scheme of compensation for the indirect costs of the EU emissions trading system are being made. It is true that the proposals for compensation for the carbon price floor are still going through the state aid process. However, we have a scheme that will come out and people will get those payments.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that neither he nor his Department would seek to block the production of any Government report on the impact of energy infrastructure and specifically the planned Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on the correlation between onshore wind and residential property values?

Edward Davey: No, we do not block reports. We work with colleagues across Government. We are working with our friends in DEFRA to produce a report on the area that my hon. Friend mentions.

Diana Johnson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the recent comments on rolling back green levies have caused serious concerns to companies such as Siemens?
	Exactly what will he do to ensure that the investment in Hull is not jeopardised by the mixed messages from Government?

Edward Davey: I reassure the hon. Lady that I have made it clear that the review of green levies does not cover renewables obligation certificates, feed-in tariffs or contracts for difference. That should be a great reassurance to Siemens. I hope that she will take that message back to her constituency. I look forward to meeting her and her colleagues shortly to discuss the important investment in Hull by Siemens.

Robin Walker: A great deal of information is available to help our constituents save money on their energy bills by switching, fixing or insulating their homes, but it can be a challenge to ensure that the right information reaches those who need it most. Will the Minister commend local business Worcester Bosch for sponsoring a free information pack for my constituents in Worcester?

Gregory Barker: I certainly commend not only Worcester Bosch but the work my hon. Friend does in his constituency with the public and the fuel-poor, and particularly in getting that information to them. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Members of the House and asked them to share with their constituents a guide developed by our Department, in conjunction with charities such as Age UK and National Energy Action, which explains how householders can cut their energy bills and where they can go for help this winter. There is help on offer.

Michael Weir: This morning it has been reported that in looking at the costs of energy, the Government are considering changing the cost of transmission. Will they take the opportunity finally to get rid of the discriminatory locational system for transmission and distribution costs that raises prices in the north of Scotland?

Michael Fallon: National Grid has been looking at the balance in cost between north and south, but a lot of energy is generated in Scotland, not least in renewables, and Scotland has an interest in ensuring that that energy is transmitted to England.

David Amess: Will the Government continue to encourage people to switch energy suppliers if they feel they are being ripped off, as I was by British Gas and E.ON UK? I have switched to M&S Energy, and saved two thirds on my bill.

Gregory Barker: I commend my hon. Friend; he is clearly one of the biggest switchers in town—but I think we always knew that. I would encourage everyone to follow his example, check their bills, and see whether they can move to a better deal. That is why we are giving statutory backing in the Energy Bill to Ofgem’s retail market reforms which will make it easier for all consumers to follow my hon. Friend’s example, compare tariffs, and get a much better deal.

Katy Clark: The number of excess winter deaths more than doubled in Ayrshire and Arran last year. Earlier the Minister referred to influenza, but my constituents are increasingly coming to tell me that they have to choose between eating and heating, particularly those in receipt of benefit cuts, sanctions and other difficult financial circumstances. Does the Minister accept that the cost of energy is a major factor in people turning off their heating and in that increase in deaths?

Gregory Barker: We absolutely get the importance of ensuring that people are able to afford the energy they need. Nobody should have to make a choice between heating and eating, and anybody concerned about that should call the energy saving advice service on 0300 123 1234. As we are so concerned about the cost of energy, the Government are determined to do their part to ensure that bills are kept as low as possible. That is why we are looking at the regressive levies that Labour put on energy bills.

Aidan Burley: Nine out of 10 consumers agree they could get a better deal on their gas and electricity supply if switching could be speeded up, and a third of people would be more likely to change providers if the process were quicker and simpler. What is the Minister doing to force energy companies to reduce the time it takes to switch providers, and when can my constituents in Cannock Chase expect to see the new rules in place?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and he will know that in the annual energy statement I challenged the industry to come forward with proposals on how the process could be speeded up without compromising quality of services or consumer rights, or putting up consumer bills. The industry has started to put forward proposals. I met industry representatives early in November and was encouraged by the discussion, and I hope to make some announcements in the new year.

Ian Lavery: Coal generates up to 50% of electricity in the UK, but sadly most of that coal is imported—there has been a 37% increase in the past year. What are the Government prepared to do to secure the future of the British deep-mining coal industry?

Michael Fallon: My Department played a role in ensuring that UK Coal Operations survived this year, following the serious fire at the Daw Mill colliery, and helped preserve 2,000 jobs at Killingworth and Thoresby. We continue to work with the UK Coal Forum and other bodies to ensure that the place of coal is properly recognised in our energy mix.

Lorely Burt: What assessment has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made of the implications for fuel poverty if the suggestion by the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs to upgrade VAT on fuel to 15% is implemented?

Edward Davey: For the sake of clarity, let me say that the Government have no plans to change the rate of VAT applied to domestic energy. Any such policy would certainly put up energy prices and risk a very negative impact on the fuel-poor.

Joan Walley: At 9 o’clock this morning, npower announced that 1,460 jobs are to be outsourced to India, and in addition that there will be 550 job losses in Stoke-on-Trent. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is the last straw, given the totally irresponsible behaviour of the energy companies? What will he and his colleagues consider doing in order to provide jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, which the Government have so far failed to do? We do not have a local enterprise zone. We need a joined-up approach from this Government.

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is right to raise that matter. The announcement is obviously very worrying for all the people involved, not just in her constituency, but in other parts of the country. We will work across the Government to see what we can do to help the people affected.

Sarah Newton: Following the publication of the Atkins report, will the Secretary of State publish a plan to implement its recommendations? The local enterprise partnership and I would like the deep geothermal demonstrator site in Cornwall to be expedited.

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady knows that we are considering the Atkins report and that we must make choices on which renewable electricity supplies we can back. I hope she will be pleased that, through the renewable heat incentive, we are supporting geothermal heat, which will be a big boost for the industry. That might not be as welcome to her constituents in the case she raises, but we want to back geothermal heat.

Tom Blenkinsop: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), 560 workers at the npower call centre in Thornaby, where many of my constituents work, will be affected by npower’s announcement to remove 1,400 jobs from the UK and send them to India—that is what it has informed the public. What communications have the Secretary of State and the Department had with npower since April? The Government will be aware that its review of call centres has been going on since then.

Edward Davey: We have not had specific discussions on the proposal announced today, so I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any background detail. However, as I have told the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), we will work across the Government, particularly with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, to do what we can to help the people affected by the announcement.

Philip Hollobone: Work starts this week on the installation of nine super-efficient General Electric wind turbines at the Burton Wold wind farm extension, which will generate 14 MW of green electricity and power 11,000 homes. Will the Secretary of State congratulate First Renewable on its £45 million investment in the Kettering economy?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are seeing major investment in all sorts of renewables, including onshore wind and the farm to which he has referred. I very much support his call and congratulate the companies involved.

Caroline Lucas: History was made at the UN climate talks last week—not, unfortunately, by an unprecedented breakthrough in negotiations, but by the unprecedented walk-out by 800 civil society groups and trade unions. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of their concerns that the talks are being unduly influenced by the fossil fuel industry? Does he agree that, if that is the case, it is unfortunate, because it does not give the talks a fighting chance of delivering what science and equity demand?

Edward Davey: I met the NGOs before they walked out. I explained the progress we were making in the talks, and after they walked out, we made further progress. No one expected the Warsaw climate change talks to be a breakthrough. They were an important building block— a foundation—for Lima next year and for Paris and the critical talks in 2015. I have laid a written ministerial statement on the Warsaw talks.

Duncan Hames: Parish councillors near Melksham in my constituency are looking forward to the community dividend on offer from developers who propose new solar power farms in the area. When will we have more clarity on such arrangements and when will the Government publish their community energy strategy?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend will not have long to wait before we publish the community energy strategy. This Government are gripping the potential of community strategy. No previous Government have recognised the potential of communities to take control of energy. Thanks to innovation and new technologies, and the financial support we are putting in place, community energy has an exciting future, solar included.

Albert Owen: Distribution and grid transmission costs account for between 20% and 25% of energy bills. Areas such as mine, which produce an awful lot of electricity, pay even more for their electricity. When will the Government review the transmission system so that we can have a level playing field across the country and National Grid can act in the national interest?

Michael Fallon: Ofgem and National Grid have been looking at transmission costs between north, south and different parts of the country. They are looking specifically at the distribution costs of local distribution operators to ensure that they are kept as low as is reasonably possible.

Peter Bone: What does the Secretary of State say to my constituents in the rural part of Wellingborough who duly elect councillors, but when planning applications for wind farms come forward, councillors and my constituents are against those plans yet they are overturned by a planning inspector? My constituents think that democracy is not working.

Edward Davey: We understand people’s concerns not just about onshore wind but about other forms of energy production, such as shale and so on. We need to ensure that the planning system is responsive. The hon. Gentleman knows that what he has said could be applied to many
	other developments outside energy. It is often the case that the unpopular development of housing or a supermarket gets overturned by the Planning Inspectorate.

Nicholas Dakin: The Secretary of State admitted, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), that due to Government incompetence no money has been paid to energy-intensive industries in mitigation for the carbon floor tax. However, he did say that money is being spent on the European Union emissions trading scheme. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) told me:
	“£16 million has been paid to 17 companies.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 142W.]
	When I asked him to name those companies, he wrote:
	“We are still assessing applications.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 663W.]
	How can money have been paid out when applications are still being assessed?

Michael Fallon: More than 60 applications have been received and we have paid out on more than 20 of them. We have done that in the past few weeks. We are processing the others as quickly as possible. The scheme that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to was the carbon price floor compensation scheme, for which we are still awaiting approval under state aid rules from Brussels.

Mr Speaker: Let us have the remaining two questions with extreme brevity.

Tessa Munt: I know the Secretary of State will want to commend the work of the Somerset Community Foundation. Under its “Surviving Winter” appeal, people can redistribute their winter fuel allowance, if they do not need some or all of it, to those who need money to heat their homes. Will the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State have further discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that notice of that is included in the letter that goes out to everybody?

Mr Speaker: As the House knows, I am a perennial optimist.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I will certainly bring her point to the attention of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Nick Smith: Why has the UK fallen to seventh in the world for investment in clean energy since the Government came to power?

Edward Davey: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s figures. A recent Ernst and Young survey had the UK as the fourth most attractive place in the world to invest in renewable energy.

Tobacco Packaging

Luciana Berger: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy on standardised packaging of tobacco products.

Jane Ellison: In accordance with the notice I gave the House yesterday afternoon, this morning I made a written statement announcing that Sir Cyril Chantler will carry out an independent review of the evidence on the impact of standardised tobacco packaging on public health.
	Tobacco use, especially among children, remains one of our most significant public health challenges. Each year in England more than 300,000 children under the age of 16 try smoking for the first time. Most adults who smoke started before they were 18 years of age. As a result, we must do all we can to stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place, if we are to reduce smoking rates.
	We have listened to the strong views expressed on both sides of the House, including when we debated standardised packaging in a Back-Bench business debate earlier this month, to which I responded. Many Members then told me that the evidence base for standardised packaging continued to grow and urged the Government to take action. Similarly strong views have been expressed in the other place. As a result, I believe the time is right to seek an independent view on whether the introduction of standardised packaging would be likely to have an effect on public health. In particular, I want to know the likely impact on young people.
	I have asked Sir Cyril to undertake a focused review, reporting in March next year. It will be entirely independent, with an independent secretariat, and he is free to draw evidence from whatever sources he considers necessary and appropriate. It will be up to him to determine how he undertakes the review, and he will set that out in more detail in due course. As the House will know, Sir Cyril has confirmed that he has no links with the tobacco industry. The review is not a public consultation. The Government ran a full public consultation in 2012 and the responses will be available in full for the review. To maximise transparency, the Department will also publish the substantive responses received as soon as possible.
	The Government will also take advantage of the opportunity offered in another place by tabling an amendment to the Children and Families Bill to provide for a regulation-making power. If, on receiving Sir Cyril’s review, the Government decide to proceed, that will allow standardised tobacco packaging to be introduced without delay. The Government have been consistent in their desire to take an evidence-based approach to public health, and we will introduce standardised tobacco packaging if, following the review and consideration of the wider issues raised, we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed.

Luciana Berger: We have seen plenty of U-turns over the past three years, but only a Government as shambolic as this one could U-turn on a U-turn. It is not so much that they have lost their way on public health—they are running around in circles.
	Will the Minister answer a straight question: does she support standardised packaging for cigarettes—yes or no? In the week running up to this being debated in the other place, does she honestly expect us to believe that this has nothing to do with the fact that the Government are on the brink of a humiliating defeat?
	The Minister says that we need another review, but the Government have already had a review and the evidence is clear for all to see. Did that not already find that standardised packaging made cigarettes less attractive to young people and health warnings more effective, and did it not refute the utter falsehood that some brands are safer than others? All the royal colleges and health experts are united behind the case for standardised packaging—I commend everyone who has campaigned for this measure—but is it not the case that if the lobbying Bill goes through in its current form, it will prevent charities such as Cancer Research UK from ever raising such issues in an election year?
	Is not the Prime Minister more interested in listening to Lynton Crosby and the vested interests of big tobacco than cancer charities and health experts? What further evidence does the Minister need? What do Ministers know now that they did not already know when they U-turned on this before the summer recess? Why are the Government delaying this still further? Some 79,230 children will have taken up smoking in the 139 days since the Government U-turned on standardised packaging in July, and about 70,000 more will have had their first cigarette by the time the review reports next March. We should be legislating now, not delaying.

Jane Ellison: I thought that was a rather disappointing and naive response. This is a complex area of public health policy, and it is important to follow a clear process and to follow the evidence. The hon. Lady might not believe me, but perhaps she will believe the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who in November 2009, when he was Health Secretary, wrote:
	“we would need…convincing evidence showing the health benefits of this policy before it would be acceptable”.

Hon. Members: We have got that evidence.

Mr Speaker: Order. I gently say to the House that the Minister is among the most courteous of Ministers, and in fairness she deserves also to be treated with courtesy. There are strong views, but let us hear the Minister.

Jane Ellison: The Government have held a consultation, but we have not had a review before. We said in July that we would pause to consider the emerging evidence base, and that is exactly what we have done. I am happy to account for my actions, but it appears that I am being asked to account for the cynicism of the Opposition, too. This weekend sees the anniversary of the passing of the legislation in Australia, and new evidence is emerging rapidly, as was pointed out in the very good Back-Bench business debate to which I responded earlier this month, as well as in the other place, so this is the right time to do this.
	Of course we have listened to what Members of the other place have said. They rightly take extremely seriously such an important public health issue as stopping children from smoking, but we have to proceed in a measured, step-by-step way to ensure that, if and when a decision is made, it will be robust and will deal with all the inevitable challenges that might come its way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are dealing with an extremely important matter, which I judge as urgent, but we have business questions and two ministerial statements to follow, so the model is what might be called “the Gibraltar model” of Mr Nigel Evans, whereby a good exchange was had, but it was a brief one. I will not be able to accommodate everybody who wants to speak.

Philip Davies: Idiotic, nanny state proposals such as the plain packaging of tobacco are what we expect from the Labour party. What we expect from Conservative Ministers is for them to believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility, and to stand up to the health zealots and nanny state brigade who, if they could, would ban everything and have everything in plain packaging. Will the Minister commit to sticking to those Conservative principles and to ignoring the nanny state brigade of Labour Members?

Jane Ellison: I know my hon. Friend feels strongly about this issue, but nobody is banning anything. Were the Government to proceed following receipt of the review, the proposal would be about packaging, not the ability to purchase tobacco. All the sorts of points that my hon. Friend has often articulated were well made during the consultation, which, as he knows, received an enormous response, and all the responses will be made available to Sir Cyril.

Madeleine Moon: Some 190 health organisations recognise that plain packaging will cut smoking, particularly among the young, and have urged action. Is this not just a further delay while the Government get their house in order so that they know how and when to introduce the legislation that is so urgently needed?

Jane Ellison: The hon. Lady is right to say that many charities feel strongly about this issue and I was pleased that the chief executive for Action on Smoking and Health said this morning:
	“This decision is a victory for public health, for common sense and for future generations”.

Paul Burstow: Smoking is a childhood addiction, not an adult choice. The announcement is welcome, in that it moves us in the right direction, but if the review should recommend what is, in my judgment, a much-needed change when it is published in March, just how quickly would the Government be able to bring in the necessary regulations?

Jane Ellison: My right hon. Friend is right that we would need to be able to act quickly if, following the recommendation, we decided to proceed. The power to make regulations is being proposed in the other place exactly so that we may move quickly at the point we
	receive Sir Cyril’s review. I have looked at the draft schedule, and if the Government were minded to go forward with this policy, I see no reason why it could not be put through before the end of this Parliament.

Chris Ruane: As chair of the all-party group on heart disease, I pay tribute to the work of the British Heart Foundation, Cancer UK, ASH and other campaigning organisations that have helped to bring about this U-turn. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) specifically mentioned the impact on such charities if the lobbying Bill goes through—they will be neutered and silenced in the run-up to the general election. What lessons should be learned from this?

Jane Ellison: The hon. Gentleman refers to another Bill, rather than the issue we are discussing now. I have heard none of those concerns from the charities he mentioned, which I understand have warmly welcomed today’s announcement.

John Baron: I, for one, very much congratulate the Minister on this welcome news. As she well knows, the all-party group on cancer has been one of many that have argued for added urgency on this issue. The Government have listened and responded, which is a sign of strength, not weakness. To follow up a previous question, will the Minister give an assurance that the regulations will be in place before the end of this Parliament, because if the recommendations are in favour of introducing standardised packaging, they will need to be implemented quickly?

Jane Ellison: That is certainly the objective of the timetable that has been drafted, once the Government have received the review and made a decision. I see no reason why what my hon. Friend suggests could not be the case.

Heidi Alexander: The Minister said that she had not held a review, but had carried out a consultation. Is that not just a pathetic excuse for inaction, and does she not accept that for every day she delays this policy, another 570 children start smoking?

Jane Ellison: We have had a consultation and now we are having a short review of the emerging evidence base. I think that that is sensible. We want to make good policy that is robust, and this is the right way to do it.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate the Minister on listening to the arguments and acting far more quickly than any Opposition Member did in 13 years. Will she assure us that the House will have the opportunity to vote in favour of standardised packaging so that we can demonstrate our cross-party support for this much-needed health measure?

Jane Ellison: At present, we are strongly minded to introduce regulations under the affirmative procedure.

Pete Wishart: I, too, welcome the Government’s U-turn. I am sure that the Minister has been following attentively the progress made on this issue by the Scottish National party Government, who have been able to make that progress
	because Lynton Crosby’s remit does not extend north of the border. Will she commend the SNP Government for taking the lead and work closely with Scottish Ministers to secure the best possible outcome for everyone on these islands?

Jane Ellison: I repeat that the Government are proceeding along the track that they laid out in the summer. We know that the Scottish Government have expressed clear views, and we will be working closely with all the devolved Administrations.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the statement and trust that we will see a Conservative-led Government introduce standardised packaging. When that happens, will the Minister take the opportunity to step up health education on this subject?

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend is right to remind us all that, even if the Government decide to implement the policy at the end of the review, there will still be many other things to be done in relation to this important issue. Major public health campaigns will proceed as they have been doing under Governments of all colours.

Meg Hillier: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) pointed out that 190 health organisations were in favour of standardised packaging. While I appreciate that there may be tensions within the Government, the hon. Lady is Minister for public health. Will she tell us whether any health organisation is opposed to plain packaging?

Jane Ellison: We have asked Sir Cyril to conduct an independent review and to weigh all the different evidence. I do not wish to seem to pre-empt the review, because it is important that it is independent, but I will say that I am not aware of any health organisations that are not in favour of plain packaging. Indeed, as the hon. Lady can imagine, such organisations have expressed the opposite view to me with considerable strength.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister remind the House of all the investment that the Government have already made in anti-smoking strategies so that no one smokes out of ignorance? Does she agree that the main responsibility for children’s smoking habits lies with their parents?

Jane Ellison: Of course we want parents to set a good example to their children and to try to prevent them from starting to smoke. The important public health measures to which my hon. Friend has referred are proceeding but, sadly, a great many children start smoking at a very young age.

Clive Efford: This is just a cynical ploy to get beyond the humiliating defeat that the Government face in the House of Lords. Notwithstanding what has been said by the Minister’s hon. Friends, no decision has been made to introduce plain packaging. Who does she think will win this war of attrition for the ear of the Prime Minister: Lynton Crosby, or both Houses of Parliament?

Jane Ellison: I could not have made myself plainer during my first session of Health questions and when I responded to the Back-Bench debate. The policy is under active consideration, and it was under active consideration before—this is evidence of that.

Nigel Mills: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Sir Cyril is not only independent of big tobacco, but independent of the health lobby?

Jane Ellison: One of the reasons we asked a distinguished paediatrician to conduct the review, rather than someone from a public health background, was that he would be able to bring a fresh mind to it. Sir Cyril will set his own terms, which he will announce in the next few weeks.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the Minister appreciate that one of the reasons for the scepticism among Opposition Members is that in the summer last year, either there was a U-turn or the policy was still under review. Why was an independent review not requested then? If that had happened, it would have been completed by now, and we could have gone ahead.

Jane Ellison: As Members on both sides of the House reminded me forcefully during the Back-Bench debate earlier this month, new evidence has recently emerged, and we are also coming up to the anniversary of the legislation being passed in Australia, so this is the right time to do this.

David Nuttall: Will the Minister reassure me that this will not be the thin end of the wedge, and that the Government will not look for evidence to support the contention that selling children sweets in brightly coloured packets contributes to childhood obesity and, as a result, seek to ban such packaging?

Jane Ellison: That is a slightly different topic. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about these issues, and he will know that, through the Government’s responsibility deal, we are working in voluntary partnership with business to make good progress on public health issues relating to obesity.

Alex Cunningham: Now that the Government have started to make this U-turn on standard packaging, will they also back the amendment in the other place that would ban smoking in cars when children are present?

Jane Ellison: We are not persuaded that legislation is the right way forward on that matter. There is still a lot of room for education, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to believe, as I do, that when parents are made aware of the dangers of smoking in cars when children are present, they will wish to desist from doing so.

Steve Brine: I welcome the Minister’s statement. In September, I visited the Cancer Research UK centre in Southampton to meet my constituent, Tim Underwood, who leads the oesophageal cancer team there. I suspect that the team will be pleased to hear today’s announcement. Will she assure us that, whatever happens at the end of this process, it will
	remain the Government’s intention resolutely to prevent young people from picking up this habit that kills in the first place?

Jane Ellison: Preventing children from smoking is a major priority for the Department of Health and for the Government, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that, irrespective of this piece of policy—important though it has the potential to be—the Government are committed to spending significant amounts on public health campaigns and all the other mechanisms available to us to prevent children from smoking.

Bill Esterson: The Minister keeps mentioning the evidence, but the evidence from Australia is overwhelmingly in favour of plain packaging for cigarettes, so why on earth is she waiting? She should bring in plain packaging now to save children from taking up smoking in the first place.

Jane Ellison: The hon. Gentleman refers to the evidence, as have other Members. That is exactly why we have asked someone who, with all due respect, is far more expert than he is or I am to look at the evidence and report to the Government swiftly. That will be a productive way forward. It will ensure that, however the Government decide to proceed, we do so in a way that is robust.

Lorely Burt: Does my hon. Friend agree with the EU majority decision that e-cigarettes should not come under the same regulations as medicines? Does she agree that they should be subject to the same marketing controls as cigarettes, whether that involves plain packaging or not?

Jane Ellison: The hon. Lady will know that that is the subject of negotiations, so I hope that she will forgive me if I do not comment on it further at this point.

Steve Rotheram: Far from doing nothing in 13 years, the Labour Government legislated to ban smoking in public places. We said that we would need convincing evidence on plain packaging, and this Government’s own consultation has now provided that convincing evidence. What further evidence does the Minister think the review will uncover?

Jane Ellison: As I have said, I am not going to pre-empt the findings of the independent review, and I am sure that Members understand why it is important not to do so. It will be good to have a review of the evidence, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my confidence that the review will be extremely worth while and useful.

Robert Halfon: I confess that I enjoyed a Henri Wintermans Café Crème after breakfast this morning on the way to work. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many lawful smokers who want to be sure what they are buying? Has she made any assessment of the effect that plain packaging could have on the black market by making it easier to smuggle counterfeit cigarettes?

Jane Ellison: That point came up during the consultation. To be clear, the review that we have asked Sir Cyril to undertake will cover the public health aspects of the policy. It will then be for Ministers to decide how to take forward the findings of the review and to make policy. The points that my hon. Friend and others have made will be borne in mind at that time.

John Pugh: The Minister says that this is a complex matter, but I am a bit puzzled. What exactly is the downside of plain packaging, apart from fewer fags being sold?

Philip Davies: A left-wing, nanny state wallah like you would not understand.

Jane Ellison: The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) may be aware that there has been a challenge to the policy in Australia, so it is important to proceed in a measured and evidence-based way.

Mr Speaker: The sedentary remarks of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) are almost as entertaining as those he makes when he is on his feet.

Peter Bone: I sometimes feel sorry for the Government. We have an excellent Minister at the Dispatch Box who is listening to Parliament and asking for an independent report, yet she gets Members of Parliament complaining about that. That is ridiculous. I think I understood her to say that if regulation is to be introduced, that will be done by statutory instrument. I hope that the Government are not going to proceed in that way, because we can only reject or approve a statutory instrument—we cannot amend it. Will she think again on that point?

Jane Ellison: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. The exact technicalities are still under review. As I said, we are strongly minded to use the affirmative procedure, but that matter is not completely resolved. Of course, we do have a little time, because we expect the review to report in March 2014.

Philip Hollobone: What steps are being undertaken with other Departments to enforce against the illegal sale of tobacco products to young people?

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue. He may or may not know that when I responded to a recent Adjournment debate that was secured by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), we discussed that point, and I invited trading standards officers to submit evidence on the enforceability of just those sorts of measures. I will be interested to hear from Members and others about how they think those might work.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister, in particular, and colleagues for being so succinct.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 2 December—Second Reading of the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on motions relating to Backbench Business (Amendment of Standing Orders) and Select Committee statements.
	Tuesday 3 December—Opposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on “Cyber Bullying”, followed by a debate entitled “Persecution of Christians in the 21st Century”. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party.
	Wednesday 4 December—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, followed by Opposition day [unallotted half day]. There will be a debate on business rates. The debate will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
	Thursday 5 December—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his autumn statement, which will be followed by a general debate on modern-day slavery. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 6 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 9 December will include:
	Monday 9 December—Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 10 December—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
	Wednesday 11 December—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
	Thursday 12 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I also take the opportunity to congratulate colleagues who have participated in Movember this month? I applaud their efforts and labours for an important cause, although I must admit that I find some of them a bit disconcerting. Some of them even remind me that this Government are trying to take us back to Victorian times.
	Yesterday, the Government proposed some very sensible measures to toughen rules for European Union migrants, including banning out-of-work benefits and quadrupling fines for bosses not paying the minimum wage. Given that Labour proposed some of these changes eight months ago, will the Leader of the House tell us why it has taken the Government so long to announce any action? Will he confirm that none of the Government’s proposed changes will be in place by 1 January, when
	work restrictions for Romanians and Bulgarians will end? Much of the Government’s plan could be implemented using secondary legislation. Given that we have 13 days of parliamentary time remaining before the Christmas recess, it is clear that we could work together to get some of these sensible changes in place. So will he agree to work with us to get this done in time?
	Despite stuffing the other place with 158 new coalition peers since the election, on Tuesday the Government lost yet another key vote on the licensing of bankers. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will now accept that important amendment and keep it in the Bill? The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill has provided yet another lesson in how not to legislate. After ignoring our request to delay the Bill until after the publication of the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, the Government presented this place with a shell of a Bill, which has now grown fivefold in the other place. That makes it a very different piece of legislation from the one that we scrutinised in this place, and it is a disgrace that the Government have developed a Bill of such importance in the unelected Chamber while treating this place with contempt. Will the Leader of the House give his assurance that when the Bill returns, we will have more than sufficient time to debate properly the vast amounts of it that are new?
	In a week of spectacular U-turns, perhaps the Chancellor’s damascene conversion on payday loans was the most surprising. After all, the Government had voted three times against a cap. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it was the prospect of yet another defeat on the banking Bill that changed the Chancellor’s mind? It seems that the Chancellor is developing a proclivity for ideological flexibility. Perhaps it is just a public relations strategy to say one thing and then do another. After all, he said he would stop tax evasion but he refused to close the giant eurobond loophole. He attacked unacceptable City bonuses and then went to Brussels to fight for them. He promised to cut borrowing, but he has borrowed more in three years than Labour did in 13. He said that we are all in it together, but prices have risen faster than wages in 40 of the 41 months since he has been Chancellor. Will the Leader of the House now give us a debate in Government time on the widening gap between this Government’s rhetoric and the reality?
	We are all eagerly awaiting next Thursday when two parliamentary Titans can tussle over the key issues of the day—and that is just the business statement. I know that colleagues will be keen to ensure that they are in the Chamber to hear the unfailingly witty ripostes of the Leader of the House. Will he confirm which will come first next Thursday, the autumn statement or the business statement?
	This week has revealed that we have a Chancellor who thinks it is Marxist to intervene in energy prices, but positively Thatcherite to intervene in the payday lending market. We have a sports Minister who appears to know nothing about sport, and a Health Minister who did not know how to access a walk-in centre.
	It is no wonder that coalition tensions have been rising, and that is only in the Tory party. Apparently 25 Conservative modernisers have been to visit the Prime Minister to warn him of a split if he abandons green levies. The Leader of the House must be wondering where it all went wrong for the Prime Minister and his
	modernisation project. The Prime Minister promised a big society and delivered the politics of division and fear, and now his self-styled successor, the Mayor of London, thinks greed is good and that some people are too stupid to be equal.
	Today’s news that the Prime Minister is U-turning on his U-turn on plain packaging for cigarettes says it all. He is a Prime Minister running round and round in circles.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response, and I join her in congratulating Members who have been participants in Movember. We shall, in some cases, regret the passing of their facial adornments. I suspect that not many of them will be persuaded to keep them on a permanent basis, but it is all in an important cause. I am sure that, across the House, we feel very strongly about the importance of supporting them in their endeavours to promote research into prostate and testicular cancers. We have made considerable progress, but there is much more to be done. I know that prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting men and if we can secure investment in research and treatment such as that characterised by successful breast cancer campaigns, men—and, I suspect, women—in this country and beyond will attach considerable importance to that.
	The hon. Lady asked about migration and I heard the Home Secretary answer her questions yesterday in the course of a rather comprehensive statement of what the Government are doing. Considering that that statement was the answer to an urgent question asked by the shadow Home Secretary, it turned out to be an own goal. The Home Secretary made it very clear that we will put a bar on migrants claiming out-of-work benefits for the first three months, stop welfare payments after six months unless a claimant has a genuine chance of a job, stop migrant jobseekers claiming housing benefit to subsidise accommodation costs, and introduce further measures on the minimum wage. She also made clear—I heard her do it—those measures which would be in place by January.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked for a debate on banking reform. I announced that the House would consider Lords amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. We did not send a shell of a Bill to the other place—far from it. It was an important measure that ring-fenced everyday banking from investment banking, ensuring that banks are never again too big to fail. It reformed the failed tripartite system that we inherited from the Opposition. It is staggering that they are now trying to engage in procedural politics on the Bill. We, as a Government, are having to put in place a banking regulatory system that will not allow the appalling mess we inherited from the previous Government to occur again as that failed this country and beyond in a major way.
	We quite rightly established the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the Bill responded directly to it. We gave the commission an opportunity to consider the measures in the Bill as part of the scrutiny of it before its introduction and the commission produced a second report. It was never in anybody’s interest for the Bill not to be completed during this Session and so we used a mechanism whereby the second report was reflected in measures incorporated
	into the Bill in the House of Lords. That is perfectly reasonable and as the hon. Lady and the House will have gathered, we anticipate a full day’s debate on Lords amendments when the Bill returns to the House.
	The hon. Lady also asked for a debate on the rhetoric and reality of the Chancellor’s policies. I would welcome such a debate as it would give us an opportunity to contrast not just rhetoric and reality but the rhetoric of the Labour party and the reality of Labour in office. Yesterday, Labour tried to talk about the economic policy of this Government but throughout the debate Labour Members failed to recognise or acknowledge the mistakes their party had made. The facts are simple and straightforward; for example, under a Labour Government there was a 7.2% reduction in the GDP of this country during the deepest recession we have seen in the past 100 years, which led to unprecedented deficits in this country. That was the consequence of a Labour Government. As for the rhetoric and reality of the Chancellor’s policies, I look forward to hearing him make the autumn statement next Thursday and set out how this coalition Government are making tremendous progress—not least by assisting people in this country through more jobs, reduced taxation, controls on fuel duties, a council tax freeze available to councils through the whole of this Parliament, and the largest increases in the state pension we have ever seen—in helping families with the cost of living, which the Opposition would signally have been unable to do had they continued to borrow and spend in the way that they did in the past. It has always been the same old Labour: spend, borrow and see the economy of this country collapse.

Andrew Selous: May we have an urgent debate on the variability in the diesel and petrol prices that our constituents are often forced to pay? Prices in Leighton Buzzard are often 5p to 6p a litre more than those in surrounding areas. Tesco, for example, charges considerably less in Milton Keynes and Dunstable than in Leighton Buzzard. Does the Leader of the House think there is an onus on companies such as Tesco and Morrisons to treat all their customers fairly?

Andrew Lansley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes because his constituency and mine are not far apart. I quite often note the difference in prices as I go around the country. Of course, that is happening for a simple reason—there are different markets in different parts of the country. So I have noticed in the past that if one is buying petrol in the Wirral close to where it is refined it might be a little cheaper than in Cambridgeshire. But the truth is that, wherever people are buying petrol or diesel, they are buying it 13p a litre cheaper than would have been the case if the fuel duty escalator introduced by the Labour party was still in place. That is £7 for an average fill-up.

Dave Watts: May we have a debate on the appalling employment practices of Amazon, which were demonstrated on “Panorama”, so that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills can set out what action he intends to take to stop those practices and stop Britain slipping into some form of sweatshop economy?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate, but if the hon. Gentleman is in his place he will have an opportunity to raise those issues with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills next Thursday when they respond to questions. None of us in the House believes that we have or should have a sweatshop economy. That is why over many years we have instituted employment protection measures, including a minimum wage. It is important that it is enforced. It is also important that we create jobs, and in this economy since the general election we have created 1.4 million private sector jobs. That should never be forgotten.

Tessa Munt: May we have a debate about Somerset county council’s rush to axe children’s centres when it has done a skewed consultation, questions were loaded, and the staff have been gagged? Its report shows that it does not even know how many children are affected, and the only failings in the Ofsted report for the two children’s centres that I have seen were caused by the council’s failings to resource them. Last week the council agreed that it would have a four to six-week period of further consultation with parents and children, and yesterday it suddenly announced that it would make the decision today. It is absolutely not fair on the children or parents.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that there are statutory requirements about the character of a consultation relating to local authority proposals to reconfigure children’s services. I am not in a position to comment directly on the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes, but I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education to respond to what she has said.

Barry Sheerman: Across the House, we all believe in supporting social impact enterprises and social innovation. May we have a quick debate—I know that it would have to be very urgent—about the barriers to crowdfunding that are coming through from the Financial Conduct Authority? Can we do something quickly to keep alive the ability of people to invest in local enterprises in their community?

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury or perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who has responsibility as the Minister for civil society, to respond to that point. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members across the House who share enthusiasm for social enterprises may wish to bring the subject before the Backbench Business Committee, which has opportunities for debates not only here but in Westminster Hall.

Mark Pritchard: May we have a debate on equal pay for women? Does the Leader of the House agree that in the 21st century it is unacceptable that far too many women in the private sector are paid less than men despite doing the same job?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members might seek to have a debate in due course. My recollection—I may be incorrect—is that the Office for National Statistics, for technical reasons, has not published
	the latest data on the gender pay gap, but will do so in December. We share the view that, while the gap may have reduced, we have not achieved what we need to achieve. It may be something on which he and others, in the light of the latest data, may wish to seek a debate from the Backbench Business Committee.

Jeremy Corbyn: May we have a debate in Government time on the situation facing people living in the private rented sector, many of whom have six-month tenancies, great difficulty getting repairs done and the danger that the tenancy will be ended if they complain to the landlord? In particular, those living in central London, where benefit levels do not meet the excessive rent levels, can then be forced to move out, leading to a social cleansing of whole swathes of our communities. It is a serious issue facing a lot of people, so it should be dealt with by the Government, not on a Back-Bench business day.

Andrew Lansley: I agree that those are important issues, and I know that we will continue to have opportunities to debate them. Many issues that are for the Government to respond to are debated in time granted by the Backbench Business Committee. I do not subscribe to the view, and neither does the House, that Government time is allocated to discuss things that are the Government’s responsibility and Back-Bench business time is allocated to discuss things that are not. On the contrary, Back-Bench business time is available, as indeed is Opposition time, so that Members can raise issues that are predominantly for the Government to respond to.

Oliver Colvile: On Wednesday that well-known press organ the Plymouth Heraldreported that the Secretary of State for Transport had said that he would look closely at improving the rail and road links to Plymouth following the closure of Plymouth airport a couple of years ago. Specifically to deliver growth, I have been campaigning for the A303 to be dualled, for trains to get into Plymouth by 9 am, rather than 11.17 am, and for more train journeys to and from London. After repeated failed requests for a debate, will my right hon. Friend support my calls for a debate on this important matter, or at the very least may we have a statement from the Secretary of State?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an issue that is important not only to his constituents, but to those of other Members in that travel corridor in the south-west. Given that wider interest, he might find that there is a wider constituency of Members who might be able to seek a debate. I certainly encourage him in that regard. He knows that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was with him in his constituency over the summer to discuss those issues. I will of course ask him to respond further, but it is very much in the minds of Ministers, not least because they have a feasibility study looking at some of the most notorious hot spots on roads across the country, including the A303, the A30 and the A358 in that travel corridor.

Ian Lucas: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is presiding over increasing chaos in his Department, with a black hole existing where the independent living fund used to be, and there
	are still questions about interference with the Public Accounts Committee. Will the Leader of the House arrange for him to come here and speak for himself?

Andrew Lansley: I seem to remember that the Secretary of State was here last week—on Monday, I think—to answer questions and speak for himself and for the Government, and I am delighted to say that when he does so he contrasts the situation in which we are creating jobs with the one under Labour in which jobs were not being created. He contrasts the situation in which every time people move off benefits and into work, work pays, which was not the case under Labour, ensuring that there is serious benefit associated with working. He also talks about the fact that we have effective systems, including under the Work programme, that are delivering effective routes back into work for the long-term unemployed.

Robert Halfon: Has my hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 784 on fuel duty?
	[That this House welcomes the Government's actions cutting fuel duty in 2011 and the freeze in fuel duty until the end of the present Parliament announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and urges the Government, if the economic conditions allow, to continue to cut costs for hard-pressed motorists and to consider a further fuel duty cut.]
	May we have a debate on fuel duty, given that in yesterday’s debate on the cost of living the Opposition forgot to mention that they increased fuel duty 12 times and that our Government have frozen it in the lifetime of this Parliament? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Chancellor to go even further and cut fuel duty in the forthcoming Budget?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and have seen his early-day motion. I thoroughly endorse the congratulations that the Financial Secretary offered him in yesterday’s debate in recognition of his campaigning. Of course, matters relating to the future of fuel duty are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he has made it clear that by the end of this Parliament, as a consequence of the decisions he has already announced, motorists will be paying 20p per litre less on petrol and diesel duty than would have been the case under Labour’s fuel duty escalator.

Simon Danczuk: Last week people in Rochdale commemorated the Holodomor famine that occurred in Ukraine, killing 7 million people in one of the most horrifying episodes in European history. Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be fitting on this 80th anniversary to debate recognition of the Holodomor as genocide?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that the Holodomor was an horrific man-made disaster of unimaginable scale. We recognise the appalling human tragedy that occurred and its importance in the history of Ukraine and Europe. The Government pay tribute to the people who continue to work to keep alive the memory of all those who perished in the Holodomor. There is a complex debate about this, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. For an explanation of that, I would, if I may, direct Members to the speech by my
	right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe in reply to a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on 11 June.

Andrew Jones: The most recently published unemployment data show that the Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency is among the top 1% in the country for falling long-term unemployment. May we have a debate about the progress that has been made in getting people back to work, particularly the long-term unemployed?

Andrew Lansley: The more we can show, particularly to those who are long-term unemployed, the benefits of the Work programme, the better it is. We have record numbers of vacancies. While we have seen a modest reduction in the number of long-term unemployed, we want that number to come down further, and the Work programme has been increasingly successful in achieving that. According to industry figures, 383,000 people have started work, and we have reached the point where 168,000 have found lasting work for more than six months. That represents tremendous progress so far, but we want to achieve more.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind colleagues about the pressure of time? If people could avoid preamble and launch straight into their question, and I know we will have pithy replies from the Leader of the House, then we will make good progress, but we must move on.

Debbie Abrahams: Given that £1.5 million-worth of donations from private health care companies resulted in £1.5 billion-worth of NHS contracts for those companies, and that the private supper arrangements with the Tory party have resulted in donations of £1.5 million to the Conservatives, may we have a statement from the Leader of the House on who these anonymous donors are and what exactly has been paid for?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is completely wrong in all her assertions. For 20 years in the Conservative party it has been clear that we do not take anonymous donations and we do not take donations to which strings are attached. It is absolutely not true to say that donations lead to contracts in the NHS. Those contracts are administered independently and fairly, and relationships with Ministers before they came into office and while they are in office have absolutely no bearing on that. Indeed, the number of private sector contracts in the NHS has not increased overall since the election.

Andrew Bridgen: On a recent visit to the Jobcentre Plus that serves my constituency, I was told that the long-term unemployed are now finding jobs and, equally importantly, keeping them. May we therefore have a debate on the success of the Work programme in getting the long-term unemployed—a group abandoned by Labour—into long-term, sustainable employment?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. The Work programme is the largest welfare-to-work programme since the 1930s. What he describes in his constituency is
	very important; it replaced a patchwork of poorly performing and expensive schemes under the Labour Government. We expect 2.5 million people to be supported over five years. What we saw under Labour, as we have seen under every Labour Government, is an increase in unemployment. Under this coalition Government we are seeing a substantial reduction in unemployment and, even more importantly, a record level of employment.

Jonathan Ashworth: On Monday the Government accepted the position of Labour Front Benchers on capping high-cost credit, ahead of certain defeat in the other place. Yesterday the Government accepted many of the proposals of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in order to take the wind out of a Government Back-Bench rebellion. Today the Government seem to have U-turned on tobacco plain packaging, again ahead of certain defeat in the other place. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in this House on why the Government seem to have run out of ideas?

Andrew Lansley: All the hon. Gentleman is asserting is that what the Government are doing is supported by the Opposition. Frankly, I am pleased about that.

Julian Sturdy: May we have a debate on the future of independent petrol retailers and the important role they play in our local infrastructure and in delivering security of supply, especially in our rural areas?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate, but I think one would be useful, because what my hon. Friend says is true, especially in more rural areas. There has, of course, been some notable erosion of the number of independent petrol retailers. The situation is very difficult and I hope they will hear what my hon. Friend has said as some encouragement to them that we recognise the contribution they make in rural communities.

Jim Cunningham: The Leader of the House will recall the tragic deaths of baby Daniel in Coventry and of baby P. Would it not be fitting to have some form of national memorial or new proposals for dealing with child abuse, given the cutbacks to local authority budgets?

Andrew Lansley: I do remember, as will other Members, those tragic events and others like them. Personally, I think that the most important memorial we can achieve is to ensure that our child protection and safeguarding arrangements are as effective as we can possibly make them. We know we are not there yet. We have made progress, but we have much more to do to make that happen. I hope we can achieve that so that children can be genuinely safe wherever they are in the country.

Philip Davies: Following on from the urgent question, may we have a debate on Government inquiries into decision making? Surely it cannot be right to farm out important decisions to unelected and unaccountable people. If Ministers are not capable of working out the evidence for themselves and coming to
	a conclusion, or do not have the guts to take responsibility for the decision they want to take, perhaps they should not be Ministers.

Andrew Lansley: In the context of the urgent question, which I thought the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) answered superbly, what was announced was a review, but, as she made clear, the decision that will be made in the spring will be made by Ministers.

Andrew McDonald: When I made a plea yesterday for disabled people to be exempt from the bedroom tax, the Prime Minister said:
	“Obviously, what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 254.]
	That is not only a direct contradiction of previously stated policy, it is at complete odds with what is happening in the real world. Can we have a statement from a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions either to correct the Prime Minister’s erroneous statement or, alternatively, to confirm that disabled people will indeed be exempt from this vicious and nasty bedroom tax that they should never have suffered in the first place?

Andrew Lansley: The Prime Minister was absolutely right to say yesterday that those disabled people who need an additional room for overnight carers will not have the spare room subsidy removed in respect of that room. That has always been the case and the Prime Minister has made that clear on a number of occasions.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Standards Committee report on my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), so that we can seek an apology from The Sunday Times?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Indeed, I think the House will be grateful to the Standards Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for an exceptionally thorough report. Having read it, I looked last weekend for any recognition in The Sunday Times of its findings, but found none. I rather regret that. If the press is rightly quick to criticise, it should equally be ready to admit when it has got it wrong.

Pete Wishart: Can we have a debate about the cost of Government hospitality, particularly when this week Scottish celebrities are tripping over themselves to snub the Prime Minister’s lavish St Andrew’s day union bash? We learned this morning that even the Prime Minister has decided to snub his own event. Does the Leader of the House have any idea who is actually going to attend?

Andrew Lansley: I have to confess that I have no idea who will attend it.

Peter Bone: My Prime Minister (Replacement) Bill is due to have its Second Reading tomorrow. It provides for a line of succession if the Prime Minister is killed or incapacitated. My apologies to you, Mr Speaker: I had listed you as third in line to
	succeed the Prime Minister, but unfortunately the powers that be have said that the House could not contemplate that. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the first item of business tomorrow is concluded very early and that no filibustering prevents my Bill from being debated? Before he answers, I can let him know that, for his information, he is 20th on the list to succeed.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I was not aware of that possibility under the Bill. It ever so slightly changes my perception of it, but I fear that I am still not entirely in favour of it, not least because it impinges on Her Majesty’s prerogatives under the constitution.
	I am sure I am right in telling my hon. Friend that there is no prospect of filibustering in this House. It is a term of usage, but it is not in order to filibuster, and the Chair would not contemplate anything disorderly happening in the House.

Clive Efford: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to explain why the Government have refused to designate the rugby union world cup in 2015 as an event of national significance, as was done by the previous Government for the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012, so that tickets cannot be sold on the secondary ticketing market and hoovered up by touts, many of whom are involved in organised criminal gangs and in exploiting genuine rugby fans?

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It might be simpler for them not to make a statement, but to respond to the hon. Gentleman in his capacity as a shadow Minister—

Clive Efford: We would all like to hear.

Andrew Lansley: Those Ministers may even want to put a copy of that reply in the Library of the House.

Philip Hollobone: In April, the amount that someone can earn before paying income tax—the personal allowance—will rise to £10,000. Together with cumulative changes made since the coalition Government came to office, that will cut an individual’s income tax bill by £700 on average and take 3 million of our poorest people out of income tax altogether, including 4,025 people in the Kettering constituency. May we have a debate in Government time on personal income tax liability and the changes made since this Government came to power?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, of which people in his constituency will take positive note. Other constituencies have similar figures, and those changes in taxation are one reason why household disposable incomes are rising, which is important for people in tough times. On the opportunity to consider that further, I can say that it may well arise during questions following the Chancellor’s autumn statement next Thursday.

Nick Smith: To follow on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), may we have a debate on the
	sale of rugby union world cup tickets? The protection of Olympic tickets from resale helped to prevent ticket touting. Can we make the rugby world cup a party for ordinary people, not just for the rich who can afford tickets?

Andrew Lansley: As I have said, I am happy to consult my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about their response on that issue.

Nigel Mills: The Leader of the House will be aware of the great concern about lifting restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians coming here after 1 January. Will he bring back the Immigration Bill on Report so that the House has a chance to consider my new clause to extend those restrictions?

Andrew Lansley: The House will be aware that I of course announce future business every week, and the Immigration Bill will be part of a future business statement. My hon. Friend was in his place yesterday to listen to the Home Secretary, and he and Members from across the House will have heard about a substantial package of robust measures that should make a significant difference. In the light of figures on migration from within the European Union, it is terrifically important to make it clear that although we value the brightest and best coming here to study and work, as is absolutely right, we and other countries—Germany, France and the like—do not want that to turn into an ability for people to come to this country or other countries across the European Union for the purpose of accessing benefits.

Alison McGovern: Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to come here and make a statement on intervention in failing markets, because he seems to be all over the shop? He has rightly given in to a cap on the cost of credit, but he will not listen on a freeze on energy bills.

Andrew Lansley: The Chancellor will be here next Thursday.

Bob Blackman: Across London and the south-east, we have the scandal of accommodation being erected in gardens and landlords charging exorbitant rents from people who are not paying council tax but are receiving benefits. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on beds in sheds, so that we can examine that problem in detail and get some action?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Not least because I would like to hear more about the matter, I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government to reply to him and to allow me to see that reply. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members may want to take further steps to secure a debate on the matter, for instance on the Adjournment.

Andy Sawford: Mr and Mrs Lloyd live in Little Addington in my constituency. They have been flooded twice because of a burst water main. Anglian Water accepts that the water main needs to be replaced, but it will not do the work until late in 2014. In the meantime, it has reduced the water pressure and people in the village cannot even have a proper shower.
	What advice can the Leader of the House give me on how we can hold Anglian Water to account and get it to change its mind and fix the problem?

Andrew Lansley: Two things can be done. I will take it on myself to raise the issue with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to secure a response from the Government. Separately, the hon. Gentleman can speak to Anglian Water, as I have done myself. I have made it clear that I have supported its bids to the water regulator for a price control, which incorporates a commitment to investment, but equally that I will hold it to its commitment to make that investment, for instance to tackle the impact of sewerage issues on households. He may have similar measures that he wants to raise with the company in that way.

Jeremy Lefroy: Tomorrow, the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, which I chair, will publish its report on the neglected tropical diseases that affect 1.4 billion of the poorest people on earth. May we have a debate about the excellent research that is carried out into those diseases in UK institutions such as the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Imperial college and many others? The UK is a world leader in such research.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right that we are a leader in research into tropical diseases and into treatments for and responses to them. Increasingly, with this Government’s commitment to dedicating 0.7% of our gross national income to overseas aid, we are also a leader in combating those diseases across the world.

Bill Esterson: Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to lead the “greenest government ever”. Now, he is ordering his officials to get rid of the “green crap”. May we have a debate on what the Prime Minister means by “green crap”?

Andrew Lansley: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was in his place for Energy and Climate Change questions, so he will have had an opportunity to hear from the Secretary of State that, through our policies, this Government are achieving greater energy efficiency and carbon reduction than any of our predecessors.

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was quoting. In those circumstances, the use of such a word is perfectly orderly, but I would not want colleagues to think that it is to be encouraged ordinarily, for it is not.

Wayne David: Given the Spanish Prime Minister’s comment that a separate Scotland would be outside the European Union as well as outside the United Kingdom, may we have a debate on the possibility of a Scotland that is in not-so-splendid isolation?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Members of this House may well seek a debate on Scotland’s future in the United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for them to go to the Backbench Business Committee to seek such a debate. It is instructive that in the space of two days, one of the central points in the document that the Scottish Government supposed would be the answer to all the questions has turned out to be based on false assumptions.

Sexual Violence in Conflict

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. This issue is not about politics but about our common humanity; it is not enough to be united in condemnation of it, unless we are united in action against it.
	It was only when the true horror of slavery came to light in the 18th century that our nation acted against it. In our time we have come to understand the true horror of war zone sexual violence in Bosnia, Rwanda, Colombia, Somalia and many other nations, including Syria. I will never forget meeting young women in a hospital in Goma who were so damaged by rape that they required surgery; the women in a refugee camp who said they were being “raped like animals”; male survivors in Sarajevo, who 20 years on still live lives shattered by trauma; or women in refugee camps in Darfur who were raped collecting firewood. What they all had in common was that, unjustly, they bore the stigma, shame and loneliness, while their attackers walked free and unpunished.
	This is rape used as a tactic or weapon of war, to terrorise, humiliate and ethnically cleanse. It destroys lives, fuels conflict, creates refugees, and is often a tragic link in a chain of human rights abuses from sexual slavery to forced marriage and human trafficking. Sexual violence affects men and boys as well as women and girls. It undermines reconciliation, and traps survivors in conflict, poverty and insecurity. Preventing it is a moral cause for our generation.
	Our goal must be to end the use of rape as a weapon of war, no longer treating it as an inevitable consequence of conflict but as a crime that can be stopped. We need to put perpetrators behind bars and restore dignity to the survivors, who are often rejected by their families, suffer illness, lack proper housing, are not employed, have no access to education, and struggle to survive. Ending war zone rape is the aim of the initiative I launched 18 months ago with Angelina Jolie, the special envoy of the High Commissioner for Refugees. I pay tribute to her for helping us galvanise world opinion.
	In April, during our presidency, the G8 adopted an historic declaration that promised to eradicate sexual violence in conflict. In June, I chaired a meeting of the United Nations Security Council that unanimously adopted resolution 2106—its first resolution on sexual violence in three years. It was co-sponsored by an unprecedented 46 nations and strengthened the UN’s capabilities. In September, during and after the UN General Assembly, we put forward a new declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict. That has been endorsed by 137 countries—more than two thirds of all members of the United Nations.
	At our behest, those countries have promised not to enter into or support peace agreements that give amnesty for rape. Suspects can be arrested in any of those countries, all of which have now recognised rape and serious sexual violence as grave breaches of the Geneva conventions, so that the principle of universal jurisdiction applies. They will support new global efforts to give aid and justice to survivors, and for the first time every UN peacekeeping mission will automatically include the
	protection of civilians against sexual violence in conflict. Furthermore, all 137 countries have agreed to support the development of a new international protocol on the investigation and documentation of sexual violence in conflict that we have proposed. Those are groundbreaking commitments to erode impunity and support victims. This month, our attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka ensured that the final communiqué contained the first ever commitment by all 53 members states to prevent and respond to sexual violence.
	We are underpinning that diplomatic campaign with practical action. Over the past six months we have worked with leaders in 14 countries who are champions of this initiative in their regions: the Presidents of Liberia, Malawi, Senegal and Tanzania, the Prime Minister of East Timor, and the Foreign Ministers of Australia, Croatia, Denmark, Guatemala, Jordan, Mexico, South Korea, the UAE and Indonesia. I thank them all for their leadership.
	We have drawn up the new draft protocol with experts from all over the world, and it sets out ideal international standards for documenting and investigating sexual violence in conflict zones. Its purpose is to increase the number of prosecutions worldwide, by ensuring that the strongest evidence and information are collected, and that survivors receive proper support. Since April we have deployed our team of experts to the Syrian borders, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo, where they have trained health professionals and human rights defenders in documenting crimes, investigating standards, and collecting and storing forensic evidence.
	In Mali, we are deploying experts with the EU training mission. They have trained two battalions of soldiers so far in international humanitarian and human rights law, in a country where men in uniform have often been accused of carrying out some of the worst rapes. We are giving new support to the UN, and have provided £1 million to support the work of the special representative on sexual violence in conflict, Zainab Bangura, to whom I pay tribute for her inspiring work. We will second an expert to her team in 2014.
	The Department for International Development is playing a vital part. It has agreed a new approach to protecting women and girls in emergency situations with the UN and civil society, and launched a new £25 million research and innovation fund to help address violence against women in conflict settings.
	All that represents significant progress—action begun by eight nations has become global; we have driven the need to end war zone sexual violence up the world’s agenda; and we have generated a new willingness from Governments around the world to take a stand on the issue—but it is only a beginning. We will not succeed until we shatter the culture of impunity, make a real difference to the lives of survivors and stop such crimes happening. Therefore, while we continue our diplomacy and practical work, lobbying more countries to join us and urging those who have done so to fulfil their promises, we want to achieve another step change in global awareness and readiness to act. We need to bring together in one place all the people who are driving forward the initiative, to open the eyes of many others and to ensure that commitments to practical actions are fulfilled.
	As the next stage in the campaign, I have decided to convene a global summit in London from 11 to 13 June next year, co-chaired by me and UNHCR Special Envoy Jolie. We will invite the states that have endorsed the declaration, and legal, military, civil society and humanitarian representatives from around the world. We will open up the summit to civil society and members of the public. There will be a large fringe throughout the summit, enabling events on conflict prevention, women’s rights, international justice, and business and human rights. We will run simultaneous events in our embassies and high commissions on every continent, so that this is not only a summit in London, but an international global event that continues around the clock throughout the duration of the summit. We intend it to be the largest summit ever staged on sexual violence in conflict.
	We want to bring the world to a point of no return, creating irreversible momentum towards ending war zone rape and sexual violence worldwide. We will ask all the countries present to make real practical commitments. We will ask them to revise their military doctrines and training, and their training and operations on peacekeeping missions. We will ask them to commit new support for local and grassroots organisations and human rights defenders. We will encourage groups of nations to form new partnerships to support conflict-affected countries, to make the matter a priority in their Foreign Ministries, and to set up teams of experts, as we have done. In addition, we will launch the new international protocol and ask all countries to ensure its implementation. We will work ahead of the summit to secure even wider endorsement of the UN declaration and the participation of all the world’s major powers, and we will seek ideas from civil society, other Governments, UN agencies, and regional and multilateral organisations, to build the momentum.
	The campaign aims to ensure that sexual violence can no longer be a feature of conflict in the 21st century, but our ultimate objective must be to eradicate all forms of violence against women and girls, in all societies. There is no greater strategic prize for this century than the attainment of full social, economic and political rights for all women everywhere, and their full participation in their societies. We will not secure that unless we change global attitudes to women, root out discrimination and violence against them wherever it is found, including in our own countries, and show the political will to make women’s participation in peace building and conflict resolution world wide a reality, including at the Geneva peace conference on Syria.
	Our work on the initiative stretches across the Government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked immigration officials to look at how to improve guidance and training on gender-based asylum claims, and she is introducing a modem slavery Bill to give authorities the powers to investigate and prosecute human traffickers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the protection and empowerment of girls and women a priority. By 2015, the UK will have helped millions more girls and women to get access to education, financial services, jobs and land rights, and our new £35 million programme aims to reduce the practice of female genital mutilation by 30% in at least 10 countries in the next five years.
	Our country is putting new effort, new single-minded focus, new resources and new political will into advancing the rights of women and girls, and ending war zone rape worldwide. In 2014, we will intensify that work in every respect, drawing on the united support of this House of Commons, the work of Members from all parties, the excellence of our diplomats and aid workers, and the strength of our alliances. Working to end sexual violence in conflict is part of the attainment of full rights for all women everywhere, and in the strong tradition of this country’s championing of human rights and freedom.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.
	The Foreign Secretary is right to say that condemnation is simply not enough and that action is required against these abhorrent and heinous crimes. When this matter was last debated in this House, I put on record the Opposition’s support for the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative, and I paid tribute to the Foreign Secretary’s considerable and personal efforts in this area. I am happy to do so again today. Indeed, I welcome the steps that have been taken since that debate in March, including by the Foreign Secretary himself, to help maintain and to raise the profile of this issue on the international stage. In particular, I welcome the decision to host a global summit in London next year, co-chaired by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Special Envoy Jolie.
	The Foreign Secretary did not make reference to the work of campaigning organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Saferworld and others. I hope and trust that that was an inadvertent oversight, but I am sure he will join me in welcoming their vital contribution to help advance this cause in recent months and over many years. Their work has been indispensible in placing this issue firmly on the international agenda, so will he assure the House of their active and engaged participation in the summit to be held in London next year?
	Sexual violence in conflict is today all too prevalent across the world. The perpetrators are rarely held to account for their crimes, as we have just heard. Indeed, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the issue as
	“the most pervasive violation of human rights across the globe”.
	The Foreign Secretary is therefore right when he says that this is the time for the international community to step up its efforts to respond to these continuing and pervasive crimes.
	When the Foreign Secretary last addressed this House on the matter back in March, he set out a number of measures that the Government were introducing to try to tackle this issue globally. I would like to ask a series of questions about their subsequent implementation. First, sexual violence as a tool of war remains one of the least prosecuted crimes, and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s focus on that work today. Will he set out for the House how many UK personnel have been deployed in post-conflict areas, as part of the UK team of experts, to help improve local accountability structures since the initiative was first launched? Will he set out what discussions he has had with international partners on contributing their skilled and experienced staff to an international
	team of experts that can be deployed more widely? I welcomed the UK’s commitment to increase funding to the UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on whether other countries have followed the UK’s lead in increasing funding for this office?
	The Foreign Secretary covered some specific countries of concern. Despite our well rehearsed disagreement with the Government on the Prime Minister’s attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit last month, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts to raise the issue of preventing sexual violence on the agenda while he was there. During his visit, he emphasised that the UK was ready to offer more assistance and co-operation to the Sri Lankan Government to tackle this issue. What response has he received from the Sri Lankan Government since the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to those offers and how he plans to take this work forward?
	In response to a written question in October, the Government confirmed that Burma has now been added to the list of countries, despite being omitted from the original list. Will the Foreign Secretary explain the reason for not including Burma as part of the initiative when it was first launched?
	The Foreign Secretary spoke about the work that is being done today by the UK’s team of experts on the Syrian borders. Can he provide any more details about the nature of the work, and whether there are plans for support to be given to those in need in Syria itself? Will he also say whether he raised this issue with the Syrian National Coalition when it was in London last month?
	The Government have taken important steps to help to raise this issue on the international stage and we pay generous tribute to their efforts to do so. Where they continue to pursue steps to help tackle this pervasive and deplorable abuse of human rights, they can rest assured that they will have the support of this side of the House in their endeavours.

William Hague: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for this initiative and our work on it in recent months. It is one of those subjects on which cross-party support, pursued consistently by all of us, is very important and helps to make a big impact on the rest of the world. I know that feelings on this will be appropriately strong among all political parties in the House.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the campaigning organisations. I mentioned that I envisaged the summit giving a big role to civil society, and that certainly includes all the organisations he mentioned. I have often stressed how our efforts build on the good work done at the UN and by non-governmental organisations around the world. I am pleased to say that many of those NGOs sit on the PSVI steering board that I have established, so they advise me directly on the development of this initiative. This afternoon, I will also be meeting organisations like Amnesty—it sits on our human rights advisory group, which also discusses these subjects. NGOs and other campaigning groups are thus fully involved in this initiative, and I value their support enormously.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right that this is the least-prosecuted crime. That, of course, is what we are trying to change: shattering the culture of impunity is our central objective. We want to break into that and show that prosecutions can take place. We have more than 70 people—doctors, lawyers, forensic experts, experts in gender-based violence—in our very impressive team of experts. They have deployed in much smaller numbers—they have other jobs in their areas of expertise—to various countries, some of which I listed in my statement. For example, we have deployed a team to Libya to assess how best to engage with civil society and women’s organisations there, while the basic infantry training we provide to Libyan troops will incorporate a sexual violence element. As I mentioned, we are doing the same in Mali.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about Burma. We are providing support to legal assistance centres in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand and to trauma care camps in Kachin state, both of which deal with rape cases. Our embassy in Rangoon is currently considering how we can do more in Burma, and we are also promoting legal reforms that address and deter sexual violence.
	We have done a lot of work on the Syrian borders, supporting the collection of evidence of human rights violations and abuses, including of sexual violence. We have trained more than 300 Syrian journalists and activists in documenting and exposing human rights abuses, including crimes of sexual violence. These are examples of the support our team of experts are providing.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about funds for the special representative. We have been the most generous of countries in recent years, but other countries have given additional funding—not many of them on the same scale as us, but I continue to encourage them to do more.
	On Sri Lanka, yes we secured the commitment in the Commonwealth communiqué, which I have to point out we could not have done had we not been there. While I was in Sri Lanka, I also gave a public speech on preventing sexual violence in conflict that was widely reported in the Sri Lankan media—on the television and across the newspapers—so I think we drew the attention of a far wider audience in Sri Lanka to this subject. I discussed with the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka specific support for our initiative, and we await their reply on whether they will support it. Of course, there are aspects that the Sri Lankan Government will find difficult to sign up to, which is why it is important to put it to them and to continue putting it to them. We can only do that, however, if we meet them, which we would not have done had we followed the right hon. Gentleman’s advice.
	That, however, is our one disagreement. Otherwise, of course, there is strong cross-party unity on this issue, and I look forward to Opposition Members as well as Government Members playing a big role at next June’s global summit.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Although, untypically, few Members are seeking to catch my eye on this statement, I remind the House that there is a statement by the Secretary of State for International Development to follow, and thereafter, under the auspices of the Backbench Business
	Committee, two debates, the first of which, in particular, is heavily subscribed. As a consequence, there is a premium upon brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike, first to be exemplified by Mr Alistair Burt.

Alistair Burt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the second time you have caught me like this; I will do my best.
	Yesterday I had the privilege of chairing a meeting at Portcullis House, which was attended by a number of Members. It was organised by the National Alliance of Women’s Organisations and the Centre for Global Justice to discuss the issues raised by today’s statement. People were full of praise for what has been a quite extraordinary and exceptional personal effort by my right hon. Friend to bring this matter forward. I do not think anyone should minimise that. The same groups will be very interested in next year’s meeting.
	I would like to raise the difficult subject of abortion. Is my right hon. Friend convinced that there is now a complete international consensus and that, although there are different attitudes to abortion, there is no restriction on providing aid and support for full medical access to all treatment, including the right to abortion services, needed by women who have been the victims of rape in conflict, or is it still the case that some countries hang back on their aid and support or make them conditional? Will my right hon. Friend raise this issue with the countries where that might be the case?

William Hague: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the support he has consistently given to this initiative. We will make sure that the organisations he mentioned will be fully involved in the global summit and in all our continuing work next year.
	The position of the UK Government on the issue he raises is that safe abortion reduces recourse to unsafe abortion and thus saves lives, although we do not consider that there is any general right to abortion under international humanitarian or human rights law. Women and adolescent girls, however, must have the right to make their own decisions about their sexual and reproductive health and well-being. The July practice paper from the Department for International Development clearly outlines the UK policy position on safe and unsafe abortion in developing countries. There are, of course, some countries holding back on this issue, but we will continue to encourage them to adopt the same approach as us.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I spoke to some Afghanistan MPs this week and was quite concerned when they said that, because of the Afghan culture, women there could not achieve equal opportunities. What training is being given to the Afghan army so that, particularly post-2014, it sees it as part of its role to protect women from sexual and other forms of violence?

William Hague: As the hon. Lady knows, this is part of an immense subject. We regularly raise with the Afghan Government the issue of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan in the future. We certainly try to build this into our mentoring of the Afghan national security
	forces. Given that we will contribute substantially to those security forces financially after the end of the 2014, we will continue to pursue this issue; it should be in their training.

Nick Harvey: May I commend the Foreign Secretary on his personal commitment to this important work and welcome the international response to the Government’s initiative? It is certainly a good start. The Foreign Secretary rightly described a comprehensive approach to this subject and spoke about the work of the Home Office and DFID. Will he confirm that the Ministry of Defence is also completely committed to this—both in principle and in practice? Our military personnel do good work in training foreign troops in various parts of the world. Is this agenda now firmly embedded in their programmes?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is very supportive of this work. I will ask the Ministry of Defence to play its part—along with other Government Departments, which I know will be keen to do so—in the global summit next year. One of our objectives is to build into the work of militaries around the world the importance of this issue. That is what we are trying to do with the various training missions I mentioned. Our MOD has a lot to offer—it can contribute a lot in that regard—and we will discuss further how it can best continue to do so.

Ann Clwyd: As chair of the all-party group on human rights, I know it has done a considerable amount of work over the years in hosting women who are the victims of rape. The Foreign Secretary should add this one to his list. I have encountered victims of rape in many countries of the world, including in Rwanda, Iraq and East Timor, and in East Timor, in particular, there has been no follow-up to the rapes that were committed by Indonesian forces against many of its citizens.
	May I also ask the Foreign Office itself to be more sensitive towards victims of rape who approach the consular services? Such victims have been treated with considerable insensitivity in the past. I think that the Foreign Secretary will know of the specific case to which I am alluding.

William Hague: The right hon. Lady is well aware of the importance of this issue because of all the work that she does. I hope that she will be heavily involved in all the work that we do next year, both personally and through the all-party parliamentary group. There are difficult issues for many countries to face in this regard, and we are trying to ensure that they face those issues by involving their leaders in what we are doing. That is continuing work.
	It is very important for the Foreign Office to be sensitive to these issues in its consular work. The right hon. Lady will have seen the publicity about one particular case this week. The Foreign Office has apologised unreservedly for what happened, and, having looked into the case, I am satisfied that it is not representative of the normal work of the consular service, including its work in Cairo, where the incident took place. Our consular staff have been dealing with an average of five rapes and up to 25 sexual assaults a year, and the
	problems that arose in that case have not been apparent in others. Nevertheless, we will hold ourselves to high standards.

Mary Macleod: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his leadership and progress on preventing sexual violence in conflict. It was excellent to hear about the global summit that will take place next June, which I think will give hope to women throughout the world. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have a cross-departmental taskforce to deal with this issue? I note that both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development are present, and I know that they consider it to be a top priority. It would be good for all Departments to work together, and to make it clear once and for all that sexual violence should not be tolerated.

William Hague: There is a living, breathing demonstration of the cross-Government work that is being done, in the form of not only Foreign Office Ministers but the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and the Department for International Development. Their work on the wider agenda is crucial. The Foreign Office leads the work on the initiative to deal with sexual violence in conflict, but I have already told the House how helpful the work of the other Departments is. There is also an inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is overseen by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. So the broad answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes.

Barry Sheerman: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but may I press him on just one aspect of it? I think that we can be a little complacent about much of this violence, whether it takes place in conflict zones or here in our own communities—and disturbing evidence emerged this week about rapes of girls in London gangs. Is not the real problem the fact that people in our own communities as well as in foreign communities do not believe in equal rights for women, and do not think that women are equal? We must stop avoiding that problem and deal with it here, as well as dealing with it in other countries.

William Hague: I agree, and I hope that none of us will be complacent. What is happening in some societies—not necessarily in conflict—is going backwards at the moment. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about what lies at the root of the problem, and that is why, in my statement, I set this initiative in the context of a broader effort. We are seeking to prevent sexual violence in conflict, but changing the entire global attitude to that—which is what we are setting out to do—would have a beneficial effect on attitudes to women in many other situations and in many societies. I must emphasise again the importance of ensuring that all our own domestic conduct and policies also push in that direction.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his announcement, and congratulate Ministers on all the work that they are doing. I should also draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I have visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Jordan, where I was able to speak to women in refugee camps. May I remind the Foreign Secretary of
	the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about the need for women to have access to full reproductive rights, and to be able to look after their bodies in the way that they feel that they should be looking after them? That issue really needs to be raised at the conference in June.

William Hague: Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows from her work that the DRC is one of the countries most affected by these issues in the world, but I am pleased to say that its Government are supportive of this initiative. They are involved in it, and I have met some of their Ministers on my own visits to the DRC. She is right to suggest that, because the conference will involve a considerable fringe that will address a wide range of issues as well as agreeing our protocol on sexual violence in conflict, there will be scope for addressing fully the issues that she has raised.

Debbie Abrahams: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement on the summit next year, but we need to get our own house in order as well, given that two women die each week as a result of domestic violence here. It is good to see the Home Secretary sitting next to the Foreign Secretary in the Chamber today. May I press the Foreign Secretary further on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on protection for women in Afghanistan? Will he tell us what protection is being given to women human rights defenders there?

William Hague: There is already training in human rights for the Afghan forces, but no one should disguise the fact that this is going to be an immense challenge over the next few years. That is why the hon. Lady and others are raising these issues. We raise the matter regularly with Afghan Ministries and I have said that we need to build it into the support that we give to the Afghan national security forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has also allocated a substantial amount of development aid for Afghanistan after 2014. We will ensure that the importance of these issues runs through all of that, but this will be one of the biggest challenges in the world, and the hon. Lady is right to raise it.

Angela Watkinson: The cultural attitude towards rape victims in some countries, and the rejection of them, means that their suffering can be lifelong. In the Foreign Secretary’s discussions with the countries participating in the international protocol, has he detected any real understanding of that fact, or any real determination to address those cultural attitudes?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is quite right. One of the most haunting and disturbing aspects of this whole thing is the fact that the people affected go on to be lifelong victims as a result of the stigma, the shame and the isolation from their families. We have to turn that around by changing the global attitudes to these subjects, so that it is the perpetrators who suffer the shame and stigma. That is our objective. I have seen a recognition of the need to do that among the leadership in many of the countries that have experienced these terrible crimes. We need to see the full implementation of the protocol
	that we will arrive at together, and the fulfilment of the commitments in the declaration that those countries have signed. Our main objective over the next few years will be to change the situation on the ground.

Jonathan Ashworth: I have listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on Burma. He will know of the reports of sexual violence against the Rohingya minority in Rakhine and against other minorities in Kachin state. In the light of those reports, there is scepticism about the depth of the regime’s commitment to the initiative. What assurances has he sought from the regime, and what role does he envisage it playing at the summit next year?

William Hague: That scepticism is understandable. This will require a big change in attitudes and increased priority to be given to this issue in Burma. We have raised the matter with the Burmese Government, but we will need to go on doing so, because the scale of the problem is substantial, including in the areas that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I cannot give any categorical assurances that the Burmese Government will do the right thing, but I can assure him that they will receive very strong encouragement from Her Majesty’s Government to do so.

Harriett Baldwin: The whole House has rightly paid tribute to the Foreign Secretary’s remarkable personal leadership in this area. I want to ask him about prosecutions. It is hard enough to get convictions for rape in peacetime in the UK, let alone elsewhere after the fog of war. Have there been any successful prosecutions? What would the Foreign Secretary consider to be a good result in this context?

William Hague: There have been very few. For instance, there have been just a handful of convictions in Bosnia following the many thousands of rape cases. In any of the conflicts in recent times, only a tiny percentage of rape cases have resulted in a conviction—too few to make any difference to the culture of impunity. There are one or two important international prosecutions proceeding at the moment, but we will be able to judge their impact only when they have been concluded.
	My hon. Friend asked what would constitute success. Success would be a sufficient number of prosecutions to change attitudes. Of course, that will take a long time to build up, but we will be making progress once military commanders know that when they issue such orders, justice will have a long reach and a long memory and there is a high chance that it will catch up with them.

Diana Johnson: In order to secure prosecutions, there must be proper investigation. We have a lot of experience in our police forces in this country, where huge strides have been made in treating victims properly and in running investigations. Is that experience being drawn on by the expert panel?

William Hague: Yes, that expertise is present in our team of experts. They are focusing on advising organisations and Governments in other countries on the documentation of these crimes, and on the use of forensics. The protocol that we want to agree next year will set out international
	standards on the investigation and documentation of such crimes, so that evidence can more easily be used across the world. Setting such standards will raise the standard of documentation and records, and the ability to investigate these crimes, in many countries. So, yes—the hon. Lady’s point is absolutely taken on board.

Philip Hollobone: I praise the personal commitment, energy and dedication of the Foreign Secretary in pursuing this really important issue. I also applaud the cross-departmental working between the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Department for International Development; it shows this Government working at their very best. In which countries and regions does my right hon. Friend expect to see the most progress over the next five to 10 years?

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We hope that the biggest progress will be seen in those countries that have experienced the most serious problems over the past few decades. We have seen those problems in Europe, in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as in Africa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Liberia and Rwanda. We have also seen them in south America, in Colombia. Hon. Members have also referred to the problems in Burma. Most of the continents of the world contain countries in which we want to see big progress being made on tackling these issues. As I have said, it is encouraging that, in most cases, the Governments of those countries are now signed up to our declaration and our initiative. That means that there is a possibility of making real progress.

Simon Danczuk: A lot of sexual violence is occurring in Sri Lanka, and it has been going on for some time. Is the Foreign Secretary really comfortable with President Rajapaksa playing such a leading role in the Commonwealth at the moment?

William Hague: I am comfortable that it was right to raise all these issues in Sri Lanka. As I mentioned as gently as I could earlier, we could not have done that had we not been there. [Interruption.] It is apparently now the policy of the Opposition that we should have been there.

Ian Lucas: No, it is not.

William Hague: So there is a little redefinition, but that is allowed. So we have made an impact on this issue in Sri Lanka that we could not have made otherwise, particularly in the speech—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that I am misrepresenting the position, but we understood the Opposition to be saying that we should not go to Sri Lanka. If we had not been to Sri Lanka, we would not have been able to do anything of this: to secure the communiqué; to make a speech on sexual violence to raise the issue with the Sri Lankan Government and to have coverage all over the Sri Lankan media. So Opposition Members can shake their heads or stick them in the sand, but the effect is the same. The answer is that I am comfortable that we did the right thing to raise this issue in a big way in Sri Lanka.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Foreign Secretary and colleagues.

Typhoon Haiyan

Justine Greening: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the United Kingdom’s response to Typhoon Haiyan. Three weeks after Typhoon Haiyan made landfall in the Philippines, its full effect is becoming clear. The impact has been devastating. As of today, the UN reports that more than 14 million people have been affected, with 3.5 million displaced. The official death toll stands at 5,500.
	I visited the Philippines last weekend. The devastation the typhoon has wreaked was clearly evident as I arrived in Tacloban in a RAF C-130 that was carrying a cargo of UK supplies. Many of the outer parts of the town have been flattened and debris from the typhoon litters the streets, but aid is now getting through at scale. In Tacloban, clearance work is well under way and reconstruction efforts were evident throughout the town, with small businesses getting going again and activity on the streets. The Philippines Health Secretary told me that 90% of health facilities in the affected areas are now operational, although many had suffered damage, but there is still huge need, particularly in the outlying islands and more remote areas. I heard from non-governmental organisations that only 20% to 30% of those people in need of shelter kits had so far received them.
	Through our rapid response facility, the UK was one of the first donors to get relief to the worst-affected areas. The UK has so far committed more than £50 million of support, which is helping to get shelter, clean water and emergency supplies to up to 800,000 people. Our logistical support has helped to transform the relief effort. Aircraft handling equipment provided by the UK to unload supplies from planes has doubled the airport capacity at Cebu. The UK has also extended the reach of our overall humanitarian response through the deployment of the Royal Air Force, HMS Daring and now HMS Illustrious. That military support has been crucial in delivering relief to more remote islands, including the provision of emergency medical assistance through the UK international emergency trauma team. I pay tribute to the outstanding servicemen and women of the RAF and Royal Navy for their tireless efforts to help those hit by Typhoon Haiyan, and to the NHS personnel who are working to take care of those injured and in need of medical assistance.
	I believe that the cross-Government nature of our effort, involving the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a range of home Departments, has hugely enhanced our effectiveness, allowing us to combine a range of assets that is greater than any other country’s response. The British public have shown, and continue to show, overwhelming generosity in response to this crisis, with contributions to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal now standing at £65 million. It is an incredible display of support to help to maintain the momentum of the relief effort, getting lifesaving supplies to those who need them most.
	It is clear that the people of the Philippines face a long road to recovery in the wake of this disaster. During my visit to the Philippines, I met Foreign Minister
	del Rosario and other members of the Philippines Government, and I gave our commitment that the UK would continue to support their Government as they begin reconstruction and seek further to improve preparedness against future disasters. There is much that the international community can do in support of that goal, and I have already agreed to dedicate £5 million from a regional programme to strengthening the resilience of four Filipino cities to natural disasters.
	While in Manila, I met the United Nations, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, other donors and NGOs. I heard about their experience of the response so far and discussed with them plans for the longer-term recovery and reconstruction effort. The Government of the Philippines have been clear that they will be leading the reconstruction effort, and the UK will support that work. I raised my serious concerns about the particular vulnerability of women and girls suffering deprivation, a lack of protection and the threat of abuse and trafficking. I hosted a high-level meeting on this issue with many heads of UN agencies in London on 13 November, when a commitment was made to ensure that protection was a core element of the response. We are working with the Philippines Government, the UN and NGO partners to ensure that this important issue is prioritised, and I have deployed UK specialists in this field to the Philippines to help to ensure that the risks that women and girls face are fully addressed.
	The Government of the Philippines expressed their heartfelt thanks to the UK Government and the British public for their response to the typhoon. We should be proud of the generosity of the public, including that of the Filipino community living in the UK, and of our medics and military personnel, and Department for International Development and consular staff, who have worked tirelessly over recent days in the humanitarian effort. In addition, we should be proud of the efforts of UK NGOs in delivering so much so quickly. This response—the public’s response—truly represents the best of Great Britain. Our thoughts continue to be with the people of the Philippines, particularly those who have lost loved ones. The dire humanitarian situation and the ongoing recovery effort deserve the continued attention and support of this Government, and I commit my Department to leading that effort. I commend the statement to the House.

Jim Murphy: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. It is three weeks since Typhoon Haiyan, and our thoughts remain with those who have lost loved ones, those still searching for bodies and those seeking to rebuild their homes, lives and businesses. I will be travelling to the area this weekend. The situation on the ground remains desperate, but it is now clear that this was one of the strongest typhoons ever to make landfall and that many of the communities closest to the shore were ill-equipped and too poorly constructed to deal with the brute force of the barrage. Typhoon Haiyan has obliterated whole towns, destroyed communities and shattered lives. Although many will rightly ask questions about climate change, this is also a story about poverty. The poorest and most vulnerable were hit hardest, the worst quality homes were those most likely to collapse, and families living in some of the
	poorest provinces in the Philippines are now left with no homes, no assets and no savings to fall back on. I would also like to join in the praise of our aid charities operating there, of DFID staff and Ministers, and of the members of our armed forces who will now, unexpectedly, be separated from their families over Christmas.
	Another thing is clear regarding this tragedy: the British public should never be underestimated. Their generosity, through their emotional concern and financial contribution, is a further brilliant reminder that we are not and never will be a nation that looks the other way. The Disasters Emergency Committee public appeal has now topped £65 million. Let us think about that. It is £1 for every person in our country, or an astonishing average of more than £3 million every day since the disaster struck, and all that at a time when many at home are struggling. The appeal started on the same weekend as the separate Children in Need appeal to support families in the UK which, too, broke new records.
	So absolute was the destruction that the UN compared the scene on the ground in Leyte island to the devastation of the Boxing day tsunami of 2004. Although the destruction was similar in nature, we can at least be thankful that it was different in scale. Yet lessons, of course, must be learned by the international community about its response to that previous tsunami.
	Let me now deal with some specific questions. The Department has not yet briefed the Opposition and, because of that, the time available today does not allow me to ask the full list of questions that I still have. As a former Secretary of State, I have always held the view that the political relationship between the two Front Benches is largely set from the Government Dispatch Box. I hope that I am not going to have to adjust, on this or any other issue, to the fact that even my request for a telephone conversation with the Secretary of State was refused—[Interruption.] It is not weak; it is a fact.
	Will the Secretary of State say what assessment she has made of how the response to Typhoon Haiyan has been informed by the experience of the relief efforts following the tsunami? How much UK aid has been delivered and what materials have been sent? What is the plan to help the Philippines Government to ensure that all donations that arrive in the country are of use in that country? The previous Government published plans to ensure that 10% of all disaster relief was directed towards work designed to ensure better preparedness for future disasters. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress and delivery of that approach?
	The United Nations has said that rehabilitation costs will be more expensive for Haiyan than was the case following the tsunami. With officials on the ground warning that it may take as long as 10 years to rebuild, it is vital that we get this right. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Philippines’ capacity to return to growth in the coming years and of the impact of this disaster on the regional economy? I want to conclude on climate change. It is neither wise nor accurate to attribute any specific weather event to climate change, but we do know that climate change is real. Due to the nature of what we are discussing today, I shall make this observation gently: there are worrying noises from parts
	of the Government regarding renewed scepticism about taking action on climate change. Will the Secretary of State put it on record that she is determined to take renewed action on climate change, which is one of the most pressing developmental and poverty reduction priorities for the Government, I am sure, and certainly for the Opposition?
	Typhoon Haiyan is not just a disaster today, but an echo of our future tomorrow. The Philippines will continue to need our support long after our shock has subdued. As the Government set out their plans in the coming months, we will rightly scrutinise them, but we will instinctively support them.

Justine Greening: Disappointingly, the right hon. Gentleman has shown that the tone of the relationship can be set by his side as well as by ours.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what we have delivered. The UK has delivered support to around 800,000 victims of Typhoon Haiyan, which has included 12 flights. Two RAF C-17s have landed in Cebu in so far, with a third rotation planned. We have also delivered more than 17,000 shelter kits, 38,000 tarpaulins, 16,000 hygiene kits and 1,500 tents, as well as water and sanitary equipment, buckets, jerry cans, 4x4 vehicles and JCBs. We have provided heavy-lifting equipment at the request of the World Food Programme to help to load and unload aid at Cebu airport, and also debris and road-clearing equipment to unblock roads so that we can get aid through. As everyone is aware, we also sent over HMS Daring, which has now been relieved by HMS Illustrious, which enabled medics and supplies to get to isolated and devastated communities. We have also had an RAF C-130 plane in the region shuttling supplies between Cebu airport and the people who need them in Tacloban, for example.
	The Government have carried out significant work on disaster preparedness. Through the UN, we are involved in the work of Political Champions for Disaster Resilience, which works with the Government in Haiti. I have invited the Philippines Government to become involved so that they can be better prepared for disasters and better able to respond to them.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what we were specifically doing in the Philippines. As I said in my statement, we have earmarked £5 million for four main cities in the Philippines that can benefit from better disaster preparedness. In 2010, the Philippines Government passed a law setting out a framework for them better to respond to disasters. As I am sure the House is aware, that part of the world is particularly prone to natural disasters. The challenge they faced was simply the scale of the typhoon, which was possibly the largest ever to make landfall. We will work to help them to improve their ability to withstand such disasters. Part of that will involve looking at how buildings are constructed and helping local government to improve its capacity to work with communities and evacuate people.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about my assessment of the Philippines Government’s capacity to deliver the reconstruction effort that is needed. They are today and tomorrow looking at the initial needs assessment on infrastructure. I have spoken to the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, which are likely to mobilise some of the financing that is needed for the reconstruction effort. There is a general willingness on the part of the
	Philippines Government to drive forward the work and on the part of the international community to support that effort over the coming months and years. Indeed, it is already projected that UN work will take place over the next 12 months as a minimum.
	The Government have always made it clear that we want an international agreement on climate change—it is vital that that is tackled. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that it was the Conservative party in opposition that proposed a climate change Act and his Government ultimately took the idea on board. I assure him that we remain resolute in prioritising tackling climate change, as he will see over the coming months.

Jeremy Lefroy: We are increasingly seeing disasters occurring around the coast and in island states. We have also seen the enormous role that HMS Illustrious has played. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, when Illustrious retires, we might convert it into Her Majesty’s relief ship, which could be based somewhere such as Gibraltar?

Justine Greening: That is an interesting suggestion. It might prove to be an expensive way of ensuring that we can reach people quickly, but we are always open to ideas. I should say that the medical team on Illustrious has already treated two children with infected wounds who unfortunately needed to have limbs amputated. That saved their lives, so we can see how our Royal Navy provides support to people who are in desperate need, and we should be proud of the work that it is doing.

John Healey: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) will be going to the Philippines this weekend to see the situation for himself. Perhaps he will find out how far the Secretary of State’s £5 million will stretch in helping those four cities to prepare to defend themselves in the future. The most shocking fact in the Secretary of State’s statement was that, three weeks on, three quarters of the people who need shelter do not yet have it. Will she tell the House what she is doing to overcome that disastrous situation?

Justine Greening: I mentioned that fact in my statement because it is shocking and sets out the scale of the challenge facing us. The typhoon hit a country that has a lot of disparate communities on outlying islands. One of the reasons why we sent out Daring and Illustrious was to get to those western islands in the Philippines that would otherwise not be reached. Obviously, there has been significant focus on Tacloban, but less focus on the area to the west of Tacloban. A lot of work is under way. I flagged up the issue of shelter because it is one of the main things on which we are working with the UN. We have sent significant numbers of shelter kits and six flights will be going out to the region this week. The very generous response of the UK public to the DEC appeal will mean that our leading NGOs will also have the resources to provide the critical shelter about which the right hon. Gentleman talks.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her announcement and the hard work that is being undertaken. On behalf
	of the people of South Derbyshire who have written to me—this is reflected in what has been said by Government and Opposition Members—may I say that the great contributions made by the public have been astonishing? I put it on record that it is not just a matter of the Government doing something, because the people are doing something, too.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right. People’s generosity is staggering. Some £65 million—that amount is rising—has been delivered to the Philippines appeal. We can be really proud of the way in which our country has responded to the crisis. When I met the Philippines Government over the weekend, their thanks to us were heartfelt. They were really staggered by the response from our country, which they will remember for a long time. In the meantime, we will continue to play our role as one of the leading nations providing humanitarian support in their time of need.

Diana Johnson: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with her colleagues in the Home Office about trafficked people, particularly women and children, who might try to get entry into the UK? What measures are being put in place to deal with that?

Justine Greening: I am interested in working more closely with the Home Office on trafficking. It is a key area with an international aspect in which we can up our game as part of the solution. We were concerned by what we came across in the Philippines. One fact that has been less discussed is the significant displacement of people. Many of them turn up in Manila and although they might perhaps get initial support for the first few days they are there, it is easy for them to become lost after that. They are at serious risk, particularly women, girls and children, of becoming involved in all sorts of situations, including trafficking, over the coming weeks and months. That was why I issued my call to action a couple of weeks ago to raise international awareness of the issue, at an event attended by the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. On the practical side of things, I sent over two of our experts from DFID to work across the UN effort and ensure that we are doing all we can to co-ordinate and prioritise the protection of women and girls through the crisis.

Robert Halfon: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I am proud of the contribution we are making both as a Government and as a people to the Philippines. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the Harlow Filipino community, who held a special fundraiser last Thursday night following the tragic death of the Harlow Princess Alexandra hospital nurse, Jeffrey Ducusin, and his son Jairo? Will she express condolences to the family and visit the Filipino community in Harlow sometime in the future to give them support at this difficult time?

Justine Greening: I express my deep condolences to the family and to all those people who have lost loved ones in the crisis. I would be happy to meet the Filipino community and I had the chance to meet some of them a couple of Fridays ago when we had a special mass at Westminster cathedral. I have been in close contact with
	the Philippine ambassador to London since the crisis hit and I saw him this weekend in the Philippines. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend’s local community.

Nick Smith: Others on both sides of the House have emphasised how the UK and the British people have shown great generosity to help out in the Philippines, but what discussions has she had with her international counterparts to ensure that all nations pull their weight and help out?

Justine Greening: Those discussions are now well under way. I spoke yesterday with Baroness Valerie Amos, who leads the UN humanitarian effort. It is clear to me that although the UK can play and is playing a leading role in responding to the crisis, it is important that other countries continue to play their role. We have seen massive generosity from across the international community, but there will be a further UN flash appeal in December. I encourage the whole international community to respond to that flash appeal positively so that we can ensure that we keep the humanitarian effort going.

Duncan Hames: Mountainside mobile signal enabled my constituents Marcus and Ellen to determine that a family of seven of their relations survived the storm on the island of Samar, but none of the homes in the community of Bakhaw withstood the storm. They report that today still no aid workers or representatives of the Philippine Government have been to the island to bring help and assistance. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that there is no unnecessary delay in the distribution of aid by the Philippine Government?

Justine Greening: The nature of the storm and the part of the Philippines it hit—the middle third of the country—have made it incredibly challenging to get to all the communities people have wanted to reach. I know that when the UN first arrived at Tacloban airport immediately after the storm had hit, it was initially impossible even to get into Tacloban, just 10 km down the road, because of the debris. Even on the mainland, reaching people was challenging. One reason we have sent our Royal Navy vessels is to reach such communities and the Illustrious significantly steps up the capacity beyond that which the Daring was able to provide to reach more of those islands. As the hon. Gentleman sets out, it is a continued challenge to reach those communities and to ensure that the supply lines that will support them over the coming weeks remain open and are established in the first place.

Susan Elan Jones: There has been much rightful praise for the work of the British public in donating to the appeal, but it has involved a younger generation of donors, some perhaps donating for the first time, most of whom will have donated by text. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that we are doing enough to ensure that donations made by text receive gift aid so that more can go towards this important appeal?

Justine Greening: I take the hon. Lady’s point on board. There are established processes to ensure that gift aid happens when it is meant to happen and that
	people have the choice—and are pressed when they are given the option—to sign up for gift aid. In my former role in the Treasury, I did a lot of work to ensure that it became easier for people to get gift aid, whether in the workplace or elsewhere, and I am very happy to follow up her point with the Treasury.

Mary Macleod: As we have heard, there has been a tremendous amount of support from the British people for those affected by the typhoon in the Philippines and the UK Government have also given £50 million. How confident is the Secretary of State that that money will reach the 800,000 people who need it as quickly and effectively as possible?

Justine Greening: We launched the rapid response facility, which meant that over that weekend we were able to start working with huge NGOs as well as smaller ones to get aid out to the people who needed it. We are using trusted NGOs, we have due diligence and I am satisfied and confident that we will ensure that the investment that goes in, whether from the British public or the Government, reaches the people it is intended to reach.

Gemma Doyle: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to review our immediate response to the disaster to ensure that the right sort of support was prioritised, given the unfortunate reports of aid sitting on the tarmac?

Justine Greening: Lessons can be learned from every single humanitarian or disaster response. For example, this was the first time we had used our NHS emergency trauma list of NHS professionals, so we will absolutely ensure that we learn the lessons. One reason we sent the loaders and rubble and debris clearing equipment was that we found that planes could land in the nearby airport, whether that was Cebu or Tacloban, but there were then two problems. Either they could get supplies off the plane but not down roads as they were not clear, or the supplies were so huge that there was no equipment to get them off the planes as that had been damaged by the typhoon. My Department sourced from the Netherlands a massive piece of equipment that could clear the biggest loads off planes. We got it from the Netherlands to Tacloban and Cebu airports to double the capacity of what we could offload from planes. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: this was a big logistical effort and as we encountered various bottlenecks they had to be removed.

Paul Uppal: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She highlighted that NHS personnel and staff are doing quite a lot of work in the Philippines. Will she elaborate on the expertise that they are bringing and the good work they are doing on the ground?

Justine Greening: I had the chance to meet some of those fantastic people and one was from my local hospital, St George’s in Tooting. There were surgeons, anaesthetists and doctors who were working alongside other international medics, such as those from AusAID, to provide support. Some of the stories of what they have done are phenomenal, particularly those about dealing with the initial casualties who came in following the typhoon. They have latterly been dealing with some
	of the broader issues, such as the fact that shelter is limited, which means that we are starting to see challenges with pneumonia in children. The work those people are doing is evolving over time. Our support is now principally being delivered through HMS Illustrious and health care is being provided by the NHS people on board.

Sharon Hodgson: Following on from the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) about the measures being taken by DFID to protect vulnerable women and girls from being exploited and trafficked, can the Secretary of State tell us which NGOs she is working with in the Philippines so that the great British public, who have already been so generous and who may want to donate directly to those NGOs or even offer time and expertise to help those women, girls and families rebuild their lives, can do so?

Justine Greening: We are working with so many that it is difficult to give a complete list. Save the Children, Plan International, Christian Aid—a range of fantastic NGOs are now involved in the effort. One of the things that we are rapidly setting up is women-friendly and child-friendly spaces so that women and children at risk have safe spaces to go to. I heard reports today when I spoke with our DFID team on the ground of children being offered for sex trade sale to aid workers in Tacloban, which of course is absolutely disgusting and unacceptable. It is why we are right and working so hard to minimise the risks to vulnerable people.

Richard Graham: I thank the Secretary of State for co-ordinating so successfully the fast and wide-ranging response of our Government to this enormous disaster, which is especially sad for those of us who have lived in the Philippines and travelled in this part of the Visayas. I also share the feelings expressed by several hon. Members about the generosity of the British people to the tragedy. I highlight the response in my constituency led by Raymond Padilla in the Gloucestershire Filipino Association, the headmaster and staff of St Peter’s high school, including Dan Hudson, who has organised a 24-hour basketball session this weekend, both the Anglican and Catholic Churches, Gloucester Rotary and many others, including the Philippine Community Fund, which was founded by my constituent Jane Walker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the emphasis in due course moves from saving lives to rebuilding communities, there will be an opportunity for DFID to highlight specific needs for goods or equipment to which our wide-ranging civic society organisations could respond?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Although the focus has initially been on providing life-saving support, going forward that will gradually evolve into the reconstruction effort, including people’s longer and medium-term needs. The Government of the Philippines are working on shaping what that response needs to be, and the UN is there to support them. I shall be interested to hear from my hon. Friend what he thinks his local community could do. I pay tribute to them for all the work they have already done. It is
	outstanding, and it is a tribute to the generosity and selflessness of people in this country that they respond so generously.

Tom Greatrex: How much of the initial £30 million that she announced in response to the UN’s $300 million appeal has gone through the UN and how much has been allocated through other routes, and which routes?

Justine Greening: About £23 million of the £30 million went to the UN flash appeal. A further £6 million or so went to the Red Cross movement in one form or another. In addition, we had set aside £8 million for the initial response through the rapid response facility. We spent £2 million on getting equipment and supplies out there. So we are now at just over £50 million. A UN flash appeal will be coming out in the next couple of weeks, once the latest needs assessment has been done.
	The Prime Minister made it clear to the president of the Philippines the weekend the storm hit that we would continue to look at what more we can do as a country to help his country respond to this crisis.

Stephen Lloyd: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and her Department. She has responded outstandingly to this crisis. Like many colleagues, I pay tribute to the British public. In Eastbourne alone the response has literally bowled me over. More than £5,000 has been raised on an Eastbourne typhoon appeal JustGiving site. Ocklynge school raised £1,600. The Rotary raised £1,500. The list goes on. It is absolutely fantastic.
	I grew up in Africa and I know that after very heavy floods, or in this case a typhoon, waterborne diseases are a real threat. I would appreciate it if the Secretary of State gave some detail about what vaccines have been provided. Is there a recognition that this could be a real issue?

Justine Greening: Picking up on my hon. Friend’s first point, I pay tribute to the officials in my Department, who have been working around the clock since the crisis began both in the Philippines—we had people who went out there that very weekend—and the whole team back in Whitehall, who have been co-ordinating with the Philippine team. These are people who literally drop everything and head over to a place to be part of the humanitarian support at the drop of a hat. We should pay tribute to their creativity, their effort and their relentless good humour in dealing with a challenging situation. They are flying the flag for our country and working alongside our fantastic MOD and NHS colleagues to deliver a cross-government response.
	My hon. Friend is right to raise the generosity of the British public and I am delighted to hear that his own community have been so generous.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) rightly raised the importance of the reconstruction phase. I know from previous disasters that, whereas the international community has responded generously and quickly to the immediate disaster, it is sometimes difficult to get a full response to international appeals such as
	that from the UN. What is the Secretary of State doing to focus attention within the UN and EU on preparing for the fundraising for the reconstruction phase?

Justine Greening: It is one of the reasons why I met with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank when I was in Manila over the weekend. The effort on setting out the infrastructure and longer-term reconstruction need is rightly being led by the Government of the Philippines. It will cover a number of areas, including housing, building and building standards, water and drainage and community resilience. Over the coming days and weeks we will have a clearer sense of the Philippine Government’s assessment of future need. That will feed into a World Bank or Asian Development Bank trust fund of some sort, and the UK stands ready to be supportive of that approach.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her personal energy and commitment in co-ordinating the UK aid effort, alongside her excellent Minister of State. Does she recognise the welcome but late response of the Chinese Government in increasing its aid and sending a hospital ship. Will she put it on record that the Chinese Government should not ruin that by politicising its aid and relief effort?

Justine Greening: I agree. I do not think that humanitarian effort should be politicised. It is about helping the people who have been put in so much need by the typhoon that hit, and getting support to them. That surely has to be the most important thing. I hope that all countries, including China, will respond positively and generously to the next UN flash appeal.

Philip Hollobone: People in Kettering and across the country have been incredibly generous in contributing £65 million to the financial
	appeal. It shows that this is the sort of international aid that everyone can support. The United Kingdom was already one of the world’s most generous donor nations, and the contributions from the NHS, the Royal Navy and other parts of Her Majesty’s armed forces will not have come cheap. How are those contributions counted against DFID’s aid target, and how are those costs reimbursed to both the Ministry of Defence and the national health service?

Justine Greening: I hope that I can provide my hon. Friend with some assurance. Where International Development spend and effort takes place in other Departments, it is classified as official development assistance and is part of the UK’s 0.7% commitment, which this year for the first time this Government are reaching. Part of our just over £50 million response is the money that we have spent sending HMS Daring and HMS Illustrious. We will fund the marginal costs that the MOD has incurred to get those vessels into the area and do the work that they have done, which I think is quite right.

Richard Fuller: My question builds on that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), while the British public have been responding generously to the appeals for the victims of Typhoon Haiyan, China has been seeking to extend its air right, raising concerns in the Philippines about its claim over the Spratly Islands. As the Prime Minister is shortly to visit China, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put a note in his bag outlining the United Kingdom’s outstanding and selfless response to the tragedy as an example of how China should respond in future?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly. I am sure that is something the Prime Minister will take on board when he visits China shortly.

Point of Order

Andrew McDonald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and advice on an exchange that took place earlier today on the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax. I mentioned the need for clarification, given that the Prime Minister told me yesterday:
	“Obviously, what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 254.]
	When I raised the matter with the Leader of the House earlier, he said, “The Prime Minister yesterday was absolutely right to say that those disabled people who need an additional room for overnight carers will not have the spare room subsidy removed in respect to that room.” My concern is that additional words have been attributed to the Prime Minister. Words have been added that he simply did not say. I am not suggesting that the Leader of the House would deliberately misrepresent what was said or mislead the House in any way, but I think that inadvertently that is the outcome of the words he attributed to the Prime Minister. I seek your advice on how that might be reconciled—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I think that I have the gist of it. Every individual Member is responsible for what they say in the House. If a Member feels that they need to correct the record in any way whatsoever, there is a route open to them, but it is not currently a matter for the Chair. If there are no further points of order, we will move on. [Interruption.] It would be handy if any private conversations about the record took place outside the Chamber, not across the Dispatch Box from a sedentary position.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	European Scrutiny Committee Report

William Cash: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the publication of the Twenty-fourth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, on Reforming the European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons, HC 109-I.
	The European Scrutiny Committee’s unanimous report is the most radical since the passing of the European Communities Act 1972. It raises fundamental questions about the operation of the Act, which are of great significance to the public and the electors, who have to obey the laws made under and by virtue of it, and the scrutiny of the European legislation that flows from it. I propose to make a short statement without interventions in order to set out the basic issues. I will then give way on specific questions as they arise.
	Emphasising the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament on behalf of the electors, the Committee makes proposals relating to a veto to be deployed at national level and asks the Government to respond to our conclusion that parallel provision should be made to enable the House of Commons to disapply existing European legislation. We specifically state that
	“there should be a mechanism whereby the House of Commons can decide that a particular EU legislative proposal should not apply to the United Kingdom”
	and that
	“if such a Motion was passed the UK Government would be expected to express opposition to the proposal in the strongest possible terms, including voting against it.”
	A further conclusion of the Committee is that parallel provision should be made to enable a decision of the House of Commons to disapply parts of the existing acquis communautaire, the body of European law that exists under the treaties.
	The Committee proposes greater involvement in European legislation by departmental Select Committees, as a whole and individually, including the appointment of a Member of Parliament as a specialist reporter on each and every Committee as a means of focusing the Committees on the enormous body of law constantly arising in relation to policy making and law making within their individual purview. We state that there should be permanent chairs and members of newly created European document debate committees that replace the European Standing Committees. We also propose the reintroduction of EU oral questions on the Floor of the House.
	We propose that there should be greater accountability of Ministers, specifically in relation to the problems that arise concerning the activities of United Kingdom representatives in Brussels, including their interaction with the Committee of Permanent Representatives who represent the European Union institutions as a whole, because we believe that there is a significant gap in accountability in that context. We also propose measures to improve debates on the Floor of the House.
	There is another concern and it relates to the treatment of European matters in the media, particularly television and broadcasting. We note the importance of providing balanced and informed media coverage on the EU in
	general, and the scrutiny process in particular, and criticise the chairman of the BBC Trust for refusing to give oral evidence to the Committee. For example, this morning the “Today” programme dealt with a whole range of matters of enormous immediate interest, including tobacco packaging and green levies. There is a stack of stuff that comes up continuously, but there was no mention whatsoever of the EU basis on which those matters are dealt with.
	With regard to what is going on in the European Union as a whole—the report refers to this—the body under the treaties that represents the national Chairmen of each of the 28 member states with responsibility for European scrutiny meets about once every eight weeks. There has been an increasing awareness over the past year, in the light of increasing European integration, demands for political union and so on, of the need for democratic legitimacy in national Parliaments. When the Prime Minister said in his Bloomberg speech, in relation to his fourth principle, that the national Parliaments are the root of our democracy, I am sure that he spoke for the whole of this House. It is vital that our Parliament gives effect to that principle.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful statement. Will he confirm that this was a unanimous and cross-party report? I note that the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House, the Minister for Europe and the Chief Whip are all here. Can we take that as an indication that they are keen to implement these recommendations at the earliest moment?

William Cash: I would be extremely interested to know why they would not be interested in supporting the Committee’s proposals, particularly the basis on which they are derived, which is that we are putting our national Parliament at the heart of the process, because that is the basis on which Members of this House are elected by the people we have the honour of representing.

Bernard Jenkin: It is remarkable that this is a unanimous report. Indeed, it is supported by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the previous Chairman of the Committee. It comes up with a radical but soundly based proposal
	“whereby the House of Commons can decide that a particular EU legislative proposal should not apply to the United Kingdom”
	even it is voted through by the Council of Ministers under qualified majority voting. It also suggests that
	“parallel provision…to disapply…the acquis”
	communautaire should be made available to the House of Commons. That is based on Professor Damian Chalmers’ analysis regarding the creation of a form of unilateral red card of national Parliaments that is, in turn, based on the EU treaties themselves, which
	“shall respect the essential State functions”
	of member states. I commend the report and congratulate my hon. Friend on it. He highlights something of a scandal in this House in that we do not scrutinise European legislation in this way already.

William Cash: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution to this discussion. In our report we reject the proposals from the Minister for Europe and the Foreign Secretary regarding a collective red card with a threshold. We believe that if the principle of veto is to be accepted, because it does not apply in the national interest, that should be a unilateral decision taken by an individual Parliament. The 1972 Act is based on the White Paper of 1971. That document, which created all the consequences that flowed from the Act, specifically stated that the veto must be retained in the national interest, not only for the sake of the individual nation states—the United Kingdom, in particular—but because to do otherwise would endanger the very fabric of the Community. It recognised that imposing a compression chamber on the whole of the European Union would lead to the kinds of problems that have recently emerged with the charter of fundamental rights, immigration questions and the rest.

John Baron: I congratulate my hon. Friend on this report and on the work of his Committee. Apart from what was suggested in the treaties in the early ’70s, we need better scrutiny not only because the organisation now called the EU has fundamentally changed since we first joined it, or because there has been a salami-slicing of our sovereignty under Governments of all parties in the past, but because the British electorate expect us to be scrutinising EU legislation in this place, as the proposals suggest?

William Cash: Indeed. These very radical proposals on changing Standing Orders and the whole mechanism and process would greatly improve our scrutiny. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution.

Philip Hollobone: The British public not only expect us to scrutinise EU legislation in this place but want to see us doing it. Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the chairman of the BBC Trust should refuse to appear before his Committee? Does that not send a very bad signal to all the other Select Committees of this House, and what can we, as the House of Commons, do about it?

William Cash: This is all covered in the report—we make extensive reference to it and include the correspondence that was exchanged between the chairman of the BBC Trust and me, as Chairman of the Committee. I think that most people would conclude that his not appearing voluntarily before the Committee to give evidence was really quite disgraceful.

Martin Horwood: I congratulate the Committee on achieving such cross-party consensus on many of its proposals, including better scrutiny by departmental Select Committees. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improved media coverage of European politics by all public service broadcasters, not just the BBC, would help to inform the European debate whichever side one takes?

William Cash: I entirely agree—that is absolutely the case. It does not follow that anyone has a complete monopoly of wisdom in relation to these issues; what matters is that we have a proper and informed debate based on central principles. The principle of the supremacy of
	this Parliament is so fundamental that there cannot be any dispute about it. A central element of that principle and of our decision making is that the United Kingdom electorate should not have imposed on them legislation that is not in the national interest and that they do not want.

Tobias Ellwood: I certainly welcome some of these findings. My hon. Friend is aware that I conducted my own study into this and became very conscious of the fact that we do not scrutinise EU legislation as well as other European countries. We are good at complaining about it but we are not engaging upstream in implementing this legislation or even preventing some of it. Will he expand on his proposed so-called European document debate committees? I would be pleased if European Committees A, B and C were replaced, because they have not done a good job. I also agree that there should be more time for us to question the Minister for Europe on the Floor of the House.

William Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There was a time when membership of these Committees was permanent, which meant that they had people who really knew and understood the context in which these matters were being debated. They were not just shoved on them by the Whips at short notice to sit there writing correspondence, or whatever; they took an enormously coherent interest in those matters. The idea of having permanent Chairs and permanent members of the Committee, in parallel with the arrangements for specialist MP rapporteurs—or reporters, as we call them—to serve on the departmental Select Committees, is to create an integrated approach so that the whole House is properly informed at every policy level and can therefore ask the right questions of departmental Ministers on the Floor of the House and in public Committee sittings.

Bernard Jenkin: At the risk of testing the patience of the House, I note that, as my hon. Friend will be aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) has tabled a new clause to the Immigration Bill that touches on these matters in relation to the lifting of restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants coming into this country under the EU free movement of people provisions. Is it appropriate on this occasion for me to draw my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) into any thoughts about how these principles might apply to a new clause to the Bill that would be effective in upholding the sovereignty of this House?

William Cash: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Given that the time limit on this debate is 20 minutes, of which there is only about one minute to go, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not want to be drawn off his subject and into the wider debate.

William Cash: I am certainly prepared to say that important questions of principle arise about the existence of European legislation, as it stands, and what changes would need
	to be made in order to amend it. This is part of what could be a disapplication provision or a “notwithstanding” arrangement to ensure that legislation fitted in with what the British people wanted.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

William Cash: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Kelvin Hopkins: I think we are personal friends but perhaps not friends in the political sense.
	I am most grateful for this opportunity to say a few words. I strongly support the report and endorse everything that the Chairman of the Committee has said. It is an excellent report that goes a long way towards satisfying what I think Members across the House have wanted for a long time. Does he agree that one component of our system that really does work is the European Scrutiny Committee itself, with the Clerk, the legal advisers and the Clerk advisers doing an absolutely first-class job? That kind of scrutiny, which we undertake every week, is a fundamental part of what we do.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman—as he prefers to be called in this context—is completely right that we are extremely well served by the Clerks of and advisers and legal advisers to our Committee and, through that service, so is the House. I simply cannot believe that we could have a better service.

James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that in order for the Committee to do its job it needs to be told what is going on, and that the Government should pay heed to the distinguished academic opinion we received, which said that limité documents should be made available to the Committee—apparently that happens in other European Parliaments—so that it can report on them to the House?

William Cash: As my hon. Friend knows, we deal with that issue in the report. A limité document is one that is heavily restricted as a matter of confidentiality. We believe very strongly that, given that other member states appear to get these documents and can make them public, so should we. It is monstrous that Committees should be gagged on matters of great public interest and importance by imposing a limité tag on them.
	On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—this is my very last point—there is at the back of the report a complete analysis of all the scrutiny systems of all 28 member states in comparison with ours, so that people can form a judgment about the effectiveness of European Union scrutiny as a whole. Obviously, if the scrutiny system of some member states is wanting, one might have reasonable grounds to worry, when it goes through the majority voting system, that not all the arguments have been taken into account.
	I am glad to have had this opportunity to speak and I am deeply grateful to all the members of my Committee for all the hard work they have put in. They agreed unanimously and I look forward to the Government’s response.
	Question put and agreed to.

Small Businesses

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call the mover of the motion, a large number of Members want to speak in this afternoon’s debates, so in this first debate there will be a six-minute limit on all contributions after the mover has spoken. I am sure that Anne Marie Morris will bear that in mind as she opens the debate.

Anne-Marie Morris: I beg to move,
	That this House encourages the Government to consider what further measures can be taken to encourage small business to flourish and prosper, including reducing the burden of red tape, addressing the complex tax structure, improving access to finance and gaining support from local government.
	May I open by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate in the first place? I am delighted to see here so many Members who want to contribute on this very important issue.
	Small businesses drive our economy. They are what create growth. Two thirds of new employment this year has been driven by the small and medium-sized enterprise community, not by the big boys. I believe we need a strategy across all Government Departments that supports that and recognises the importance of small businesses and vaunts them. We need a strategy and a culture change. We need to show national pride—writ large—and to say that small businesses are key and matter and that we as a Government support them.
	The Government have a good record, but their proposals and measures tend to look at the SME community as a whole. Given that that can refer to businesses with 250 employees and a turnover of £50 million, the Government would be advised to look at segmenting the market and prioritising some of their support and funding for some of our very smallest businesses.
	The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has a great record. It introduced the micro moratorium on new legislation for three years. It also introduced the red tape challenge. Indeed, 6,000 regulations are up for review, with 3,000 of them to be cut or significantly amended. The Department has changed employment legislation so that, when there is a problem and there needs to be a parting of the ways between employers and employee, the situation is now much easier and effective for both sides. The Department has also sensibly challenged health and safety. A non-high-risk business now has to be shown to have been negligent, rather than face a strict liability test, before it can be taken to court. The burdensome reporting and assessment that used to take place have also been removed from those low-risk businesses.
	On access to finance—something that so many of our businesses call for—the Government have introduced the funding for lending scheme, which has gone well. StartUp loans have also been extended and the enterprise finance guarantee scheme has been very helpful.
	We cannot, however, rest on our laurels. The Department needs to address some key issues. First, on late payment, I know that the Government are reviewing the prompt payment code, but I think that something needs to be included in the accounts so that company auditors can report on, and make clear, businesses’ record on them.

Jake Berry: On the issue of late payment, my hon. Friend may be aware that the court system can make judgments on small business interest rates whereby a punitive rate of interest is paid by a large business to a smaller one if it fails to pay. Would she welcome the introduction of such a provision to other small business contracts?

Anne-Marie Morris: I would indeed. That is a very sensible suggestion and I am sure the current review will look at it.
	When people start up a small business, they are concerned about mortgaging their house and having to give personal guarantees. Can we not separate the liability of the business from the home and secure it instead on the business asset? We could do that if we introduced limited liability for sole traders and reintroduced the potential for banks to take a fixed charge over book debts.
	The Government have welcomed the plethora of new so-called challenger banks and new alternative lenders, but let us be clear that they need more support. We need to look at the right sort of light-touch regulation in order to make them safe funding institutions in the fabric of our society. More importantly, the Government need to ensure better communication, because businesses do not know what is out there or how to assess it.
	We also need to address the issues of European Union regulation, because the micro moratorium addressed only domestic regulation. The EU red tape taskforce has identified 30 areas to be addressed, which is welcome, but more needs to be done. I would ask the UK better regulation taskforce to look not just at what we can do to encourage EU initiatives, but at how we make regulations in this country. My understanding is that most of the review looks at whether a piece of legislation will be burdensome for the SME community as a whole, without really addressing the issue of very small start-up businesses.
	The Treasury has been good. It has introduced small business rate relief and extended it, and I hope it will be extended further in the Budget. It has reduced corporation tax: we are ever closer to 20% all around. Perhaps most valuable is the national insurance employers’ allowance, meaning £2,000 off the employer’s contribution. That is good news.
	Again, however, more needs to be done. Business rates are one of the biggest challenges. They need to be seen as fair and transparent. A firm with a business on the high street that is not the main footfall area of the town still pays high rates, and yet the rates for an out-of-town retailer covering the same amount of square feet seems disproportionately low.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech. On business rate reform, I am sure she has heard, as I have, from local businesses that feel they would struggle without the extension of the small business rate relief that the Government have already given them. My hon. Friend has already said that she wants it to be extended, but does she agree that there needs to be more fundamental reform of the business rate system to support our small businesses?

Anne-Marie Morris: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there needs to be root-and-branch reform. The whole way in which rateable value is calculated is a
	mystery. The rulebook has got a bit like the tax code. Why are some pubs assessed on turnover, while others are assessed on freehold or rental value? That is arcane and requires a thorough overall.

Mary Macleod: Does my hon. Friend agree that in London, where my constituency is, small businesses are penalised because the higher rateable values there mean that rates are extortionate?

Anne-Marie Morris: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point.
	The next area that should be addressed is the VAT cliff: if a business’s turnover reaches £79,000, it is suddenly hit by having to find VAT. It will hardly want to increase prices to its customers by 20% overnight. We could have a ratchet mechanism or go to the EU, which would be perfectly possible. I urge the Government to do so, because we need a derogation.
	The Government, but particularly the Treasury, should consider the removal of class 2 national insurance contributions. The self-employed have to pay two classes of contributions, and they find that incredibly confusing. We have a great record on corporation tax, but could we not do more, including by looking at a new, simplified flat tax for the smallest businesses?
	We should talk not only about BIS and the Treasury, but the Department for Education, because education is critical to our having a true and sustainable supply of new small businesses. The Government’s introduction of financial education is a fantastic first step, but that is only one piece of the enterprise skill set that an entrepreneur needs.
	It is great that apprenticeship schemes have grown under this Government, with 858,000 individuals participating in those schemes this year, but we need more. We need enterprise education for six to 60-year-olds. The World Economic Forum has recommended that there should be enterprise education in every country throughout the period of education. I suggest that we ask Ofsted, which looks at community engagement to measure what schools do, to consider not only that point but business engagement as well.
	In relation to funding in the tertiary sector, we should also look at whether institutions are offering enterprise education, which I believe should be available whatever discipline students are reading. Although I applaud Lord Young’s comments about business schools taking a lead, we should remember that they are not the only such place. There is a role for universities to work much more closely with local enterprise partnerships, a point to which I shall return.

John Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend agree that in many cases it would be beneficial for universities to be represented on LEP boards?

Anne-Marie Morris: That is an excellent idea.
	The Department for Work and Pensions also has a role to play. It has done some good things—it has delayed auto-enrolment for pensions, and we heard this morning that there may be a cap on pension charges—but the Work programme needs to offer the potential for proper self-employment. Research undertaken by the
	all-party group on micro-businesses has found that almost half of the businesses offering the Work programme did not have an adequate skill base to enable people to go back into work as self-employed individuals. The DWP could consider what it might do to help late returners. Organisations such as PRIME—the Prince’s Initiative for Mature Enterprise—help them to return to work, but there is very little else, although that matter is important.
	Let us not forget the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It has done some great things for businesses. High-speed broadband is absolutely critical, and the fact that there are now broadband connection vouchers for small businesses in 22 cities is very welcome. However, more is needed, because rural areas are really suffering.

Mark Pawsey: My hon. Friend is setting out measures that will enable small businesses to grow. Let us not forget that every big business was once a small business, and, taken together, such measures should provide an incentive for businesses to get bigger.

Anne-Marie Morris: That is absolutely right.
	We need to spread the broadband initiative and encourage Ministers—sooner rather than later—to look at the 4G market. One of biggest concerns of small businesses is that they cannot get mobile reception, which is critical to them.
	I ask the Department for Communities and Local Government to work with the LEPs and get them to engage better with the smallest of businesses. Please could it also look at procurement? Although central Government have done a good job in trying to meet their obligation of giving 25% of contracts to SMEs, the picture in local government is rather less rosy.
	The Department of Energy and Climate Change also has a part to play. The £90 million scheme for clean-tech entrepreneurs is a very good step. There is a green deal specifically for small businesses, with a pay-as-you-save scheme. However, more needs to be done, including help with switching suppliers. Businesses currently find themselves moved automatically on to new contracts on disadvantageous terms.
	What more could UK Trade & Investment and the Foreign Office do? UKTI has done a really good job, but it needs to do more to help the smallest businesses, and there is a call for greater support at embassy level.
	Let us not forget the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which after all represents a fifth of our economy in the form of rural businesses.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the emphasis that the Government, driven by the Treasury, have placed on our embassies in the past three and a half years, UKTI is doing a fantastic job around the world through taking delegations, aided by Ministers, to push British exports? It is meeting with considerable success, because it has beefed up the quality and quantity of the people representing British industry and the Government around the world.

Anne-Marie Morris: I agree entirely.
	To return to DEFRA’s key role, a grant of £60 million has been set aside for the rural economy to enable businesses to look at opportunities in tourism and
	micro-enterprise. However, the Commission for Rural Communities has said that the Government need to consider future-proofing such businesses, particularly in relation to their peculiar needs for access to finance.
	Finally, because I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak, I call on the Cabinet Office to come up with a good definition of a small business. There has been a review in Europe, in relation to the Small Business Act for Europe, on how businesses are defined. It seems to me that European definitions have not been adopted across the UK. I am far from convinced that those definitions are right, but the term “SME” means very little to the average householder. Let us get a definition that is meaningful and relevant to the UK economy.

David Simpson: The hon. Lady is certainly giving a very fiery and passionate speech, which is very welcome in this House. She mentioned personal guarantees. We have seen reports in the press of the antics of banks in forcing companies into liquidation so that they can avail themselves of their assets. When someone gives personal guarantees and then goes out of business through no fault of their own, a stigma is attached to them in this country, though not in other countries, and we need to get round that stigma. It would be an excellent idea for the banks to look at that.

Anne-Marie Morris: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which we should certainly consider.
	The Cabinet Office and BIS can lead the charge to celebrate small businesses and to get behind a joined-up strategy across all Departments, including by being clear what we mean by small businesses. In particular, let us all get behind small business Saturday on 7 December, to say, “We in this House support small businesses. We are there for you.”

William Bain: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: Follow that!

William Bain: Indeed; it is a great pleasure to follow the tremendous speech by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). I thank her and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling the debate.
	I represent a constituency that has one of the largest problems of family poverty and long-term unemployment in this country, but it also has some rapidly expanding SMEs. I have been in contact this week with Gaia-Wind, which is the fastest growing private company in Scotland and the eighth fastest growing SME anywhere in the UK, to hear its exciting plans for expansion. It also, however, shows us some of the particular needs of participants in the green economy and the problems that they face.
	There is a lack of investment in our economy. We discovered yesterday that investment by businesses has been largely flat over the past year. In fact, business investment contributed only 0.1 percentage points to the 0.8% of GDP growth in the third quarter. We also know that access to finance is a huge problem for the SME sector. Although the small regional banks in
	Germany, the Sparkassen, were able to keep lending to support SMEs during the recession, lending by institutions in this country, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, shamefully fell to spectacularly low levels, which had a huge and disproportionate impact on the SME sector.
	In the coming weeks, we will celebrate the contribution that small business makes to our local economies and the national economy. We will celebrate the fact that there are 4.9 million businesses in this country employing 24.3 million people. However, we must be aware of the need to take firm action on business rates, the need to expand the range of financial institutions that are able to lend to SMEs, and the need to do much more on skills, and research and development.

Julian Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman also celebrate the excellent, detailed, cross-departmental work that the Government have done to support British businesses—big, small and medium—and to get the economy in a position to turn a corner and move into accelerated growth?

William Bain: I certainly will not celebrate the three years in which we have had very little growth, which had a huge impact on SMEs. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I want to speak about the positive issues on which we might find more cross-party agreement in this debate.
	I refer hon. Members to the excellent report that Santander and Dods published recently in the House. It contains key recommendations that the Government should attend to quickly. It shows that 285 separate schemes are available to SMEs which, in the view of the report’s writers, is far too many. It sets out the good recommendation, which the Government could implement straight away, of developing a single portal through which SMEs can have contact with central Government. The report found that only 29% of SMEs were aware of the existence of the funding for lending scheme and that 28% of businesses thought that access to finance would be the biggest impediment to growth in the next few years.
	Shockingly, the report revealed that only 12% of students in our colleges and universities would make working for an SME their first choice on graduation. That is a real concern, given that the vast majority of job creation in the coming years is likely to come from the SME sector, and it shows that there is much more that the Government, SMEs, colleges, universities and schools need to do to promote founding and working in small businesses as good career paths.
	As a country, we need to do far more work on skills. Only yesterday, the Minister illustrated in a written answer to me the growing gap in early rates of pay between those who have level 4 skills and those without any qualifications at all. That hourly pay gap of £8.84 has widened by a tenth in the past six years alone. SMEs, the Government and local authorities need to do a huge amount to improve in-work training so that people can see wage progression in a job, and so that a job in a small or medium-sized enterprise can become a career with long-term prospects.
	We need to improve the shockingly low rates of research and development in this country. In public and private sector research and development, we lag way behind our main competitors in the EU and many of the emerging markets. The Government must do much
	more to boost the innovation that comes from the many millions of small businesses throughout the country, such as Gaia-Wind in my constituency.
	As a matter of urgency, we need to improve access to capital. When I speak to SMEs in my constituency, they make it clear that they are willing and able to take on more staff, and that they want to create more demand across our country. However, the banking system is simply not working for SMEs. We need new players to come into the banking system and regional banks that focus on the needs of the economies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the different regions of England.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that if that is to work, the regional banks in all parts of the UK, including Wales, need to be driven by entrepreneurial zeal, rather than a civil service ethos?

William Bain: My hon. Friend raises the important point that we need a culture of long-term investment, as has happened over the past few decades in Germany, where there has been strong support for SMEs from the Government and the financial institutions. We need to see more of that in this country and it would be best delivered through a system of regional banks that provide support to business on a dedicated, local basis.
	Finally, in this most significant of weeks for Scotland, I must say that it is critical that the SME community speaks out on the question of Scotland’s continued membership of the United Kingdom. It would be disastrous for Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK and disastrous for exporters if Scotland were forced out of the United Kingdom. It is important that all of us in the House encourage business to speak out on the need to keep the Union together.
	I am incredibly supportive of small businesses in my constituency, and I look forward to hearing a positive debate among Members on both sides of the House.

Chloe Smith: I think that this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on taking the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing the debate and all those who supported her at the Backbench Business Committee. To pick up on just one of the points that she made, I agree about the difficulties that are presented by the VAT threshold, which I saw recently in the case of a meals on wheels business that serves my constituents. It is just about to hit the threshold, but its customers are ill-equipped to deal with a hike in prices.
	Like my hon. Friend, I look forward to celebrating small business Saturday in my constituency. I also look forward to a discussion that will take place shortly at Norwich business school, whose advisory board I sit on, about how such business schools can be anchor institutions for the small firms in their surrounding area.
	In the report, “Growing Your Business”, Lord Young of Graffham drew out just how much more there is to do to open up public procurement to small and medium-sized firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot mentioned the Cabinet Office at the end of her
	comprehensive list, and I am sure that she would join me in congratulating the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General on his work to give 25% of Government business to small and medium-sized enterprises. Surprisingly, it is often forgotten that the Government buy large quantities of goods and services on behalf of taxpayers, and there is no reason why small and medium-sized businesses should not take pride of place in that marketplace.

Andrew Bingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that small businesses find it difficult to deal with Government agencies because they are presented with a bewildering array of things such as pre-qualification questionnaires? Small and micro-businesses do not have a huge army of staff to deal with such nonsense, which increases costs not only for business, but for the Government, because they could have bought what they needed cheaper from a small business in the first place.

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend could not have made a better intervention because I was pleased to be able to contribute to solving that exact problem when I was a Cabinet Office Minister.
	Given a few tools, we can all do much more in our constituencies, and Lord Young is continuing to work on that issue in association with my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills and Enterprise. We must encourage small and medium-sized firms to use Contracts Finder, on which they will find a clear record of all available Government contracts. We should urge local authorities and others to put their contracts on that portal to allow the operation of a comprehensive marketplace.
	We should also encourage constituency businesses to use the mystery shopper scheme that the Cabinet Office has introduced, which will help to solve the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot. When small businesses that seek simply to get on and do business encounter poor practice or communication from the public sector, they need a way to solve the problem. The mystery shopper scheme does exactly that, and also gives us a chance to do more to encourage public authorities—whether local government, health, police or fire services, or any similar service—to do more to make their procurement SME-friendly.
	Small firms can encounter many problems such as the prevalence of pre-qualification questionnaires and late payment. A care company in my constituency deals with customers who are particularly vulnerable, and tragic havoc can be wrought if a health body makes a late payment to such a company. The motion rightly calls on local government to do its part, and I suggest that better procurement forms an important part of that.

Mark Pawsey: My hon. Friend mentioned pre-qualification questionnaires. Once a small business has managed to jump through the hoops demanded by one authority, should not that be good enough for another authority? Perhaps we should have some form of qualification certificate.

Chloe Smith: That is my view. To the best of my knowledge, the Government are bringing forward proposals to put in place exactly that, which I support wholeheartedly, having started that work some months ago.
	The motion refers to red tape, but again there is no way to solve that problem except through a methodical approach. I applaud the opening provided by the mystery shopper service to which I referred as it allows us to be methodical by making a list of things that have gone wrong and solving them one by one. That is the only approach that will work for regulatory problems. We must hear from small firms that regulations have served ill, and then we can go about solving the problems. I always say as a constituency MP that I cannot attempt to help a constituent to solve something if I do not know the detail of what the problem is.
	Like many others, I am sure, I encourage firms to use the red tape challenge that the Government have rightly set up, and I welcome the results of the initiative so far. To date, more than 3,500 regulations have been identified for reform, saving businesses more than £215 million per year. That is worth doing, and I am sure that the Minister will update the House about how we can extend that approach to European regulatory burdens. On behalf of my constituency businesses, I care very much about that issue.
	In the remaining two minutes available, I will conclude by talking about recruitment, which is crucial for small and medium-sized firms. Of course we all want such businesses to become larger firms, if that is their ambition, but to do so they need great people to become their employees. I run a large campaign in my constituency called Norwich for Jobs, which does what it says on the tin. It seeks to create more jobs in Norwich, especially for those aged 18 to 24, and we aim to halve youth unemployment in Norwich in two years. I am pleased that local firms have responded to the call and that more than 800 jobs and apprenticeships have been pledged to the campaign. Although the campaign has been going for only 10 months, 400 young people have been helped into work so far. I want to ensure that small firms have pride of place in that campaign. I will soon run an event with the Federation of Small Businesses and a sister campaign called Swarm. We will consider how to encourage small businesses into such operations, and help them to find the talent they need among local young people. That not only helps the community and young people, but places small businesses in control of their recruitment.
	I hail the £2,000 reduction in national insurance that is coming forward in the shape of the enterprise allowance, which will be important for cutting small firms’ jobs tax from Easter next year. I also note the success of start-up loans. So far there have been about 30 of them in Norwich, and 10,000 nationally, which is to be welcomed as it is all to the good of small businesses.

Debbie Abrahams: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and to co-sponsor this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing it. I am pleased to speak in this debate, which considers how we can overcome the issues facing small businesses. Small businesses, which in my definition are those with fewer than 50 employees, are the powerhouse of the economy. They contribute 46% of the UK’s income in the private sector—a massive £l,558 billion—and constitute more
	than 99% of all businesses. Ultimately, a sustained recovery will be built on their backs, as has been said, and that must be recognised.
	A whole range of different factors affect the success and even the viability of small businesses, including access to finance, the high costs of business rates and energy bills, but I will focus my remarks specifically on late payments. Hon. Members may know that for the past two and a half years I have run a campaign on late payments. It started as a small, local issue after a haulier came to one of my surgeries and said that he was going to go out of business because of late payments. The average term he was being given was 30 days, but he was often not being paid for 90 days. That is a common story that I wanted to look into in more detail.
	I tried to discover the scale of the problem and it was striking that so few businesses would come forward and describe what they were experiencing. That was until one brave local couple, who started a plumbing business 35 years ago, came to me and said that their business was going under—as indeed it did with debts of more than £150,000 due specifically to late payment.

Mark Pawsey: Is the hon. Lady confusing late payments with customers who refuse or do not have the means to pay? Those are totally separate issues and if a business wants to avoid the problem of late payment, it can refuse to supply goods to the customer until the account has been paid.

Debbie Abrahams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, if slightly patronising. I have gone into the issue in quite a bit of detail, and it was a specific point about late payments.
	Let me give a bit of background to this case. As I said, the story of Ann and Harry Long is far from unique and is a particular problem for small and micro-businesses that do not have the cash-flow buffers of larger companies. I have a particularly a high level of micro-companies in my constituency—more than 85% of companies have fewer than 10 employees—and a number have gone into administration, primarily as a result of late payments.
	Nationally, we know from Bacs that more than £31 billion is owed to small businesses, and more than half—58%—of the country’s 1.7 million SMEs say that large companies choose when they pay. In 2011, only £24 billion was owed, so the problem is increasing. If we compare what is owed in late payments to the amounts being lent by high street banks, which last year was £56 billion, we sense the scale of the problem.
	According to Bacs data, the average SME is owed £31,000 at any one time and waits an average of eight working weeks for payment, which is nearly double the contract terms. I am particularly concerned about the gaping north-south divide. Small businesses in the north say that they are owed an average of £39,000, which is almost double the £23,000 owed to the average southern business.
	The 2012 small business survey reported that 55% of SMEs, 53% of small businesses and 46% of micro-businesses say that large companies are not paying their bills on time. The most recent Federation of Small Businesses survey suggests an even worse picture. Seventy-three per cent. of businesses say that they were paid late
	in the past 12 months, and one in five say that half of all invoices are paid late. Interestingly, 70% say that the problem has got worse in the past 12 months and that the private sector is the biggest culprit.
	Research by the Forum of Private Business last year indicated that late payment is having a significant impact on businesses development, productivity and growth. Access to, and the cost of, finance, and credit trade insurance, were cited as problems linked to late payment. Late payments have a knock-on effect, leaving many small businesses in a vicious cycle of late payment. The FPB’s economy watch panel indicates that 42% of SMEs believe that late payments were not seen as important.
	As we have heard, the impact of late payment can be disastrous. It is estimated that, during the 2008 recession, 4,000 businesses failed as a direct result of late payments. No official data have been collected, but the situation needs to be monitored. There is growing evidence that late payments to SMEs are hurting our economic recovery. Office for National Statistics data show that SMEs make up to 98% of the total number of organisations, providing 59% of all private sector jobs and 45% of all employment, and generating 46% of the UK’s income.
	What is being done to tackle the problem of late payments? The previous Government introduced the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, but it was not used, because companies feared being blacklisted. The prompt payment code, a tool introduced by the Institute of Credit Management, committed signatories to pay suppliers on time under the terms agreed without attempting to change payment terms retrospectively, enabling every level of the supply chain to meet the terms. However, the code has had mixed effects. First, there is a very poor take-up by FTSE 100 companies.

William Bain: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. What does she make of the National Audit Office recommendation that Government Departments need to work more closely together, and that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury need to work harder to support small businesses in the way she indicates?

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We need to encourage that.
	People are abusing the prompt payment code. They are either signing up and changing their terms, or changing their terms prior to signing. Most recently, the EU late payment directive stipulated that public authority-to-business invoices must be paid in 30 days, and that business-to-business invoices should be paid in 60 days. However, there have been problems with the transposition into UK law. Section 7 of the directive has not been taken up and independent organisations will be unable to use it to help small businesses.
	Another development last year was the introduction of the small chain finance scheme. That is another difficult problem.

Mary Macleod: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on introducing this extremely important debate on small businesses. Some of the facts and ideas that have been discussed are important. Those
	ideas could make a difference. We heard the numbers from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams)—of the 4.9 million private sector businesses in the UK, 99% are SMEs, which employ more than 14.4 million people. The debate matters to all hon. Members’ constituencies and every sector.
	We should recognise that, in the past three years, 400,000 more businesses were created. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on the work he has done in enabling that to happen. In my constituency in the past two years, 825 new businesses were set up. It is one of the top 10 places in the UK to set up a new business. The Government’s initiatives to help small businesses have made a difference.
	Locally in my constituency, whether in Chiswick, Brentford, Isleworth, Osterley or Hounslow, I meet my businesses, large and small, regularly, because I believe it is important to hear of their success and of the challenges they face. I have worked with them and the local council to enable 30-minute free parking in the local town centres across my borough—the businesses have asked for it.

Andrew Percy: May I offer my hon. Friend a practical example from North Lincolnshire council of the success of exactly that free parking policy? When we scrapped Labour’s parking charges and introduced two hours’ free parking for businesses, local businesses reported a big increase in trade in our town centres, even at a time of difficult economic circumstances. We are extending that support further by providing free wi-fi in our town centres, which she might want to consider.

Mary Macleod: That is an absolutely brilliant example—that is something I would like to do to support my local businesses in west London.
	I meet my Chiswick traders regularly. Last time, we met in Club Workspace, which I recommend to hon. Members. It is a much more creative and innovative way of allowing entrepreneurs to have the space to work. It is not as rigid and long-term as things used to be, but more flexible and modern. It is very effective.
	I have also done apprenticeships seminars to encourage small businesses to take on apprentices. I met Mumpreneur, Athena and other groups that support small businesses.
	Naturally, we are supporting small business Saturday. We will be doing lots of things during the day for it. It has galvanised my local businesses to work together. Between them, they came up with all sorts of things to do, which was brilliant to see. I have also run workshops on women and enterprise, because I believe we do not have enough female entrepreneurs, which I will address in a moment.
	I wanted to mention to the Minister some of the issues that have been raised with me locally, including business rates, to which I will return, access to funding, legislation, red tape and parking. Where do businesses go to find help? More clarity and simplicity on helping small businesses would be useful.
	I have a role in helping the Minister as a small business ambassador for London. Only yesterday, I went to the meeting of the London enterprise panel’s SME working group. It had four key priorities—finance and equity; the availability of work space; trade and
	exports; and business support—but added another at the meeting: the skills shortage. The suggestions that hon. Members have made to do more in schools, colleges and universities are important. Strangely enough, in Prime Minister’s questions this week, I asked him how we can create enterprise and business champions in each of our secondary schools—we could arguably do so before that, but perhaps we should start with secondary schools—to foster and inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs. We want young people to think of entrepreneurship as an option when they finish school, college or university. There are special financial packages for them.
	Last week, I asked the Prime Minister about business rates—I was fortunate enough to have questions at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks in a row. I am glad to say that he has agreed to meet me next week to discuss reform of business rates.

Simon Danczuk: I support the hon. Lady in her concerns about business rates. Does she support the Labour leader’s proposals to freeze and then reduce business rates for smaller businesses?

Mary Macleod: I want reform of business rates and for them to be looked at very differently. In London, businesses are treated unfairly and we want fair taxation. The turnover of many small independent shops in my constituency is not as high as one might expect in London, so they are penalised by the high business rates in London. They also question what they get in return for business rates. That could be clearer—police, fire or other services. All they know is that the £27 billion raised from business rates is spread across the country. I favour a localised approach, so that we are able to reinvest in our local areas.
	The Government have done a lot for local businesses. One of the big measures, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), was to remove £2,000 from national insurance bills. Other measures include: business mentors, £50 million- worth of £10,000 start-up loans and cutting red tape. The Prime Minister visited my constituency three years ago to meet Octink, another great local business in my patch, to consider how we can simplify employment legislation—another important issue for small businesses.
	There are three key points in particular that I would like the Minister to consider. First, there should be enterprise education in schools. Businesses and entrepreneurs should be encouraged to allow students and pupils to do work experience in their businesses, and perhaps all hon. Members can help to facilitate that with their local schools. Secondly, we have already discussed business rates and I will be talking to the Prime Minister about that next week. Thirdly, returning to women and enterprise, if women were setting up businesses at the same rate as women in the US, we would have 600,000 more businesses. That would add £42 billion to the economy—a huge amount. I run workshops in my constituency, with the support of StartUp Britain and the chamber of commerce, to encourage women to think about setting up businesses. We have fabulous businesses, such as Shavata and My Plumber from Chiswick, and inspiring women who have done it for themselves and are successful.
	The Government have done much and there is probably more that all of us as hon. Members can do to support the small business community. I look forward to encouraging more and more businesses in the months and years to come.

Simon Danczuk: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). I share many of her concerns about business rates and agree with some of the solutions she proposes. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who has done an excellent job in securing the debate. It is important that it is taking place before the autumn statement, so I thank the Backbench Business Committee for helping to make that happen. Before I begin my comments proper, let me declare an interest. On small business Saturday, my wife and I will be opening a small business of our own: Danczuk’s Delicatessen in Rochdale. I encourage all hon. Members to visit and spend their hard-earned money.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am aware of the opening of this fantastic new deli. I am sure my hon. Friend will be stocking exotic produce, but will he be making an effort to stock local produce—the food that makes his area special?

Simon Danczuk: We will stock a variety of local produce. There will be some continental produce, but there will be traditional Lancashire produce too. It will be well worth a visit and opens a week on Saturday.
	The first thing to say in a debate about small businesses is what a great contribution they make not just to our economy, but to our culture, our communities and the way we live our lives. As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot said, we need to spend more time celebrating the work of smaller businesses and the people who run them. It is these business people who are the backbone of our economy. They create the vast majority of jobs, and export their goods and products across the world. They are at the heart of innovation, which is often copied by larger businesses, and drive growth throughout the United Kingdom. They also carry the burden of worry and stress of managing risk every day of the week. We need to do more to celebrate what they do.
	Small businesses are vital to our economy, but they are also vital to our society: they are one of the most powerful forces for social mobility. Academics and politicians often talk about the importance of education with regard to social mobility. That is important, but by starting and growing businesses people can thrive and prosper. They are vital in encouraging and establishing social mobility.

Mark Pawsey: Was the hon. Gentleman as struck as I was by the assertion at a recent breakfast meeting that the top entrepreneurs were those people who had not been to university, did not have degrees and had had to work from the bottom up?

Simon Danczuk: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, because that is exactly the point I am making about social mobility and supporting entrepreneurialism and the growth of small businesses.
	Let me tell hon. Members about one of my constituents. Ian lives on the Falinge estate in Rochdale, which has achieved notoriety for having the highest number of benefit claimants in the country. Like others there, Ian was unemployed. He was determined to get out of that situation, so he decided to start his own business. He cashed in his pension and set up his own fish and chip shop. He learned the ropes by working for free in another nearby chippy and then set up his own shop in the town centre. I used to pop in and have a chat with him every now and again. He was making a good fist of it and there were always plenty of customers coming through the door. In his first year, he won an award at the town’s annual business awards. Despite all that success, Ian was forced recently to close his shop simply— I do not exaggerate—because of business rates. He was paying double in business rates what he was paying in rent, and that was not sustainable.
	Ian’s case is a tragedy for him and for social mobility. It demonstrates that unrealistic business rates are damaging our economy and our society. The Government need to do more on business rates and should have gone ahead with the revaluation. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I support the Labour leader’s proposals to freeze and then reduce business rates for smaller businesses in particular. Business rates are not the only issue, however. Let me provide another example: banking.
	Hanson Springs, a very successful family business in my constituency, was in 2009 dragged by RBS into what we now know to be the Global Restructuring Group scandal. Let me briefly explain. RBS in my opinion deliberately undervalued a property it had a loan against and used that as an opportunity to push Hanson Springs into its Global Restructuring Group. At the first meeting with GRG, Hanson Springs was introduced to a solicitor who had been brought along to discuss taking an equity stake in this family business. GRG then forced a business review with Zolfo Cooper on to it at a cost of £20,000. Its GRG manager had previously worked for Zolfo Cooper—I am sure that was a coincidence. Hanson Springs was then given three options, none of which was acceptable. As the family pointed out to me, if the business had not been cash-flow rich and if they had not had the personal resolve, the company would have been forced to close.
	Hanson Springs is now 50 years old—we have moved on four years. It turns over £20 million each year, employs 180 people, exports 85% of what it produces, and since the problems with RBS, has paid in excess of £l million in corporation tax. If RBS had had its way, we would have lost hundreds of jobs and the money from taxation, and we would have had people claiming benefits and yet more manufacturing moving abroad. Hanson Springs is a perfect example of business at its best. It is a great example of a family pulling together to create something great and is probably a perfect example of social mobility, but look how it nearly all went badly wrong because of RBS’s behaviour. Ultimately, it is down to us politicians to intervene and set up the right regulatory process to ensure that banks treat our businesses better.
	Smaller businesses are exceptionally fragile entities. It is our responsibility not to take them for granted and our duty to remember that these businesses are the lifeblood of our country.

Bob Russell: The motion is entitled, “Issues facing small businesses”, and talks about
	“addressing the complex tax structure”.
	I will follow the last two speakers and confine my contribution to business rates. Indeed, what I am about to say could easily have been said in the Westminster Hall debate under way at this very moment on retail and the high street.
	I note the pledge from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) that Labour would freeze and then reduce business rates, but for 13 years it went nowhere near it. In fact, it went in the opposite direction, as I will make clear in a minute. We now know, however, that Rochdale is the home not only of the Co-op, but of Danczuk’s Delicatessen. We await the growth of that organisation in the same way as the co-op movement has grown over the past 160 years or so.
	I want to suggest something that I first proposed long before I became a Member of this House: the abolition of business rates for neighbourhood community and village shops, post offices, community stores, pubs and things like that. The way to make that fiscally neutral, which the Treasury would require, would be to put a charge on out-of-town car parks. That is exactly what the Labour Government proposed in 1997-98, before they were clobbered by the Tescos of this world, which in those days had the sort of power over the Labour Government that the trade unions today have over Her Majesty’s Opposition.
	Generally speaking, business rates are assessed under two headings: the net internal area or the gross internal area. The NIA is used for small and medium-sized shops and businesses in town centres and neighbourhood communities, while the GIA is used for industrial properties, such as warehouses, factories and distribution centres, but now also supermarkets and large stores, mostly out of town. In that respect, the same principle should apply to the treatment of supermarkets as applies to neighbourhood stores.
	What makes it even worse, as I am advised, is that the valuation office instructs surveyors when evaluating rates not to make an addition for customer car parking. The average rateable value for small and medium-sized shops in Colchester town centre is about £225 per square metre, whereas the average rateable value for supermarkets and other large out-of-town store premises is about £40 per square metre, so we are nowhere near a level playing field. The NIA system is assessed, in part, on benefits—shop windows, for example. To make it fair, supermarkets should be assessed on their benefits, which include free customer car parking and the other bits and pieces that go with it.
	The two systems are obviously extremely unfair and biased against shopkeepers in town centres, neighbourhood communities and villages. I am grateful to Mr Ian Berry, a retired gentleman with an interest in the unfairness of rating values for small businesses. On behalf of him and just about every small shopkeeper in the country, I wish to put the following questions to the Government. Is it fair that shops in Colchester and other town centres have a rateable value five and a half times that of the out-of-town giants? Is it fair that shops with parking spaces in Colchester town centre are assessed at £500 per parking space, when those out of town are not? I am advised that one shop on Colchester high street is rated at £213 per square metre, whereas Amazon, which is in direct competition and which, incidentally, pays very little corporation tax, is rated at only £39 per square metre on its premises in Peterborough.
	Let us have a level playing field. The last Government rightly referred to sustainable communities, and the coalition Government have rightly referred to localism, so let us have some fairness. One way of having fairness would be to put a levy on out-of-town car parks and abolish business rates for small shops, community stores and public houses.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome this debate and compliment the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and the other Members who secured it through the Backbench Business Committee.
	I want to begin by putting a human face on this debate. Several people have talked about the definition of small businesses. For me, that definition could include Worgan’s in Llanharry, a small, family-run enterprise that started as a small gift shop selling various things for the local community, but which extended by opening a café in the next-door premises and then a mobile chip shop. The definition could also include the former Sony site in Bridgend. Sony went through a difficult time when the market for cathode ray tube televisions completely fell apart—when flat-screen televisions came in, those jobs quickly went abroad—but the management retained the skilled work force and rebuilt the business on the basis of high-end engineering and their massive expertise in design, engineering and manufacturing. Working alongside other companies, it has built itself back up and now has 500 employees onsite, 150 of whom work in 28 incubation companies—small companies, built up with the assistance of Sony expertise, working in digital media, graphics, television and many areas, and supported as they grow from micro-businesses into small businesses and, we hope, into the giants of tomorrow.
	The definition of small business could also include Ferrier’s, a local estate agent on Commercial street, in Maesteg, where my office is based. It was established in 1918—by coincidence, that was the same year Labour first won the seat of Ogmore, so I hope we will both shortly be celebrating our 100th anniversary—and it has extended to open other outlets in Kenfig Hill and elsewhere. There is a wide range of businesses. I think of Cwm Tawel Yurts, a tourism enterprise in a beautiful little valley around Betws, and of the Food Box. Then there are two brothers on the Maesteg industrial estate who left my state comprehensive school, one going on to study applied sciences, the other, following a different path, management. They came back together and established a 3D engineering company that did all the things expected from 3D engineering, but which has also now extended into life sciences. It applies 3D engineering to the life sciences, uses 3D modelling in the development of things such as heart valves that grow organically within the body and it supplies tiny parts that help the space station run.
	In talking about the 99% of small and medium-sized businesses, we recognise that they are diverse, which gives them some resilience; that they are fragile, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) said; and that they need the right support structures in place to assist them to thrive and grow.

William Bain: We have a burgeoning life sciences sector in Glasgow, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Audit Office made a powerful point when it
	said that there is a potential funding gap of some £22 billion in the finance available to small businesses between now and 2017. Would it not help small businesses in his constituency and mine if the Government did something with the banks to help plug that gap?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There has to be cross-party agreement to take this forward and to ensure that finance is available.
	Let me mention one stark figure. Even though there are signs of optimism in some parts and some sectors of the Welsh economy, a recent survey of members of the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales showed 55% of them reporting that credit was unaffordable, while 65% said it was not only unaffordable but completely inaccessible. The idea that these businesses can grow by getting affordable and accessible lending is simply not happening, which is a tragedy.

Simon Danczuk: Is my hon. Friend aware that some small businesses are afraid of approaching their banks about credit or getting an extension of their overdraft because they fear that the banks will rein things in and make it even more difficult for them?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed. There is a big argument not only for more localisation of the traditional banks, but for the regional bank model that Labour Members support. When I made the point earlier that that model should not be bureaucratic and civil service-driven, I was speaking from experience based not only within this country but in other European countries. That model works best where it is very locally focused and entrepreneurial, with managers of the account streams fully understanding the businesses with which they deal. Access to finance is indeed a big issue.
	I will not go over business rates again, as others have done so, but it is a real issue. I believe that the proposal from Opposition Front Benchers to freeze and then reduce them is a good one. As to Ministers saying we never did it, I simply say that the proposal is there on the table for them to support if they want to support it.
	I turn my attention to one area about which I have particular knowledge and concerns. I refer to supporting small businesses where the potential for employment growth is the biggest—namely, through the application of green technologies, such as solar power or insulation for greater energy efficiency in homes, and so forth. I was intimately involved in the incubation phase of the Energy Bill that the Government brought forward, and I pointed out some of its potential pitfalls. If it had succeeded, however, particularly the green deal with the associated energy company obligation, it could have provided massive incentives for tens of thousands of small businesses. I am talking about all those people who have been installing loft insulation for years and those who have switched to installing solar panels with the feed-in tariffs. They could have had a new opportunity to take on apprentices, perhaps young people in my area who cannot find jobs. The green deal work could have produced a massive expansion of the sector.
	We had to highlight the problems, however. We noted that the finances did not seem to work and that it might not be possible to sell the green deal to people. Consumers are pretty intelligent people who, as they look at it, will run a mile. We said, too, that there were rogues out there
	who would blacken the reputation of the green deal before it even took off and, with deep regret, I have to say that that has now come true. The Minister put forward an aspirational target of 10,000 installations linked to the green deal. That would have provided one of the biggest employment boosts in the small business sector right across the country and in every single community—rural, urban or whatever. Out of that 10,000, we now know that there have been just over 200 installations. It does not matter how many installations were in the plans; they have not taken place.
	We are looking to find agreement on areas that require better support—through access to finance, for example. We might have different solutions—how best to enhance access to finance, to reform business rates and so forth—but a proposal that would make a material difference tomorrow, if we got it right, is dealing with cold homes and businesses that have runaway energy costs. That means getting energy-efficiency right and getting the energy installations right. We are failing—miserably—and companies are shutting their doors on the scheme. It is a tragedy. I am sure that the Government have all the best will in the world to turn this around, but we see no sign of them putting measures in place to achieve that.
	There has been considerable agreement in today’s debate about the importance of small businesses. Some will choose to stay small, but many will grow and grow, and they will thrive. Tata Steel and Ford in south Wales have a huge impact on the local economy, but they are dwarfed by the impact of all the small and medium-sized businesses that need our support.

Jake Berry: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing this important debate. Before I go on to talk about the challenges that businesses face—I am sure we would all recognise them from our constituencies—I would like to celebrate some of the successes of small businesses, particularly those in east Lancashire.
	Moving from having a salary paid by someone else to going into a business where individuals are responsible for paying their own salary every month is a huge risk. I pay tribute to all the people throughout the country who have set up new businesses, often risking their home, their savings and everything they own to realise the dream of owning their own small business.
	I would like to celebrate the success of some businesses in my own constituency. Riley’s the Butchers is one of them. We often say that butchers cannot succeed in the current environment when they have to compete against supermarkets. This is a small, family-run butchers that is beating the supermarkets at their own game with a fantastic product and a personal bespoke service to everyone who shops there. We also have businesses such as Parrock Lumb Cottages, which develops local tourism, but not at the expense of our environment. Environmental concern lies at the heart of this firm’s economic growth, showing that economic growth and environmental concern do not necessarily have to come at the expense of each other. Each of these firms is a small business; each is unique; and each is succeeding in the Rossendale valley, the home of enterprise. If anyone is tempted to visit either of those businesses, I would recommend it, but not without stopping at Love Umbrellas, which makes
	bespoke, hand-made, high-fashion umbrellas, showing how small businesses can succeed by using social media to market their enterprises.
	If it rains all the time in Wales, it does in Darwen, too, where there is business called Minerva Craft, which has moved from Blackburn market into a large industrial unit, with both retail and internet sales based in the same site. DHJ Weisters is a weaving firm in my constituency making ties and bridal fabrics, showing that small businesses that invest in their work force, their machinery and their premises can keep manufacturing onshore, rather than having to send it offshore.
	The business community in my area has grown during the last three years, and this has been the real driver of the transformative change that we have seen in unemployment. Rossendale and Darwen has the lowest unemployment rate since 2010. It is half the national average, despite it arguably being in a deprived part of east Lancashire. Our unemployment rate has come down by 20% in the last year alone, showing that small businesses growing and succeeding can transform the local labour market.
	Small businesses continue to face challenges. In Rossendale and Darwen, the biggest one relates to the skills gap. Since 2010, we have seen over 4,000 people start apprenticeships in my constituency, while we have run two “100 in 100” campaigns this year. Working with local business, we recruited 200 new apprentices in 100 days. We are an area predominately concerned with manufacturing, so many of these apprenticeships were highly technical and skilled engineering apprenticeships. Many were also in the high-level service sector, with apprentices taken on in accountancy and hairdressing. One apprenticeship was even based in my office with a training caseworker. That shows how important small businesses are to our economy. Small accountancy firms such as Hindle and Jepson have opened to support the new, expanded business community.
	Business rates remain a threat to the future prosperity of businesses, but it important to say how much I welcome what the Government have already done. The automatic exemption of small firms from business rates has helped 330,000 businesses, which not only pay no rates, but no longer have to engage in the time-consuming task of filling in highly complex forms. I welcome all that has been done to support small businesses through business rate relief, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think about what more could be done in that regard.
	I should like the Government to consider introducing a fractional payment option, enabling businesses to pay their rates weekly or monthly. I should also like the Minister to tell us what information he has about the use by local authorities of the business rate flexibility that enables them to give businesses in their areas a 25% discount. If he had still been in the Chamber, I would have asked the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) whether his local council had offered that discount to the business that he mentioned. In April, there will be a further big boost for businesses when the employment allowance is introduced. We are reducing every business’s jobs tax by £2,000, which means that a third of employers will pay no jobs tax at all.
	Small business Saturday is hugely important, and it is great to see the television advertisements supporting it. I shall be working at Gilly’s sandwich stall in Darwen market, so if any Members want to come and do their Christmas shopping early, I should like to see them.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and her colleagues on persuading the Backbench Business Committee to grant the debate.
	Small businesses play a major role in all our constituencies —mine is certainly no exception. They are important to the economy not just in their own right, but because they provide vital underpinning for many larger businesses in other economic sectors. They also play a vital role in maintaining healthy local communities through, for instance, their presence in shopping centres.
	It is understandable that Members want to be positive in such a debate. Most of what I say will certainly be positive, and Government Members will obviously want to highlight what they see as the Government’s achievements. However, we should not forget the mixed experience that many small businesses have had over the past few years. Many have survived, and are surviving now, only with great difficulty. According to the Forum of Private Business—we will all have received its briefing yesterday—94% of small businesses are reporting increases in cost pressures, and many small business proprietors have managed to survive only by cutting their own wages and those of their staff. Small businesses are not in any way exempt from the cost of living crisis that is affecting so many of our communities and constituents.
	As I have said, however, I want to be positive and to focus on what can be done to strengthen and support small businesses, which I have discussed with representatives of various small businesses in my area. Several hon. Members have talked about the need for more sympathetic treatment by the banks. I do not have time to repeat the horror stories that we have all heard, but some of my constituents have reported awful experiences with RBS’s global restructuring group. I hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on what his Department is doing in response to the allegations about that organisation. Even if we leave aside some of the more dramatic examples, it is clear that businesses need more sympathetic treatment by banks. The banks should recognise the difficulties that have been caused by branch closures, and, of course, there needs to be more competition and choice in banking. Labour has made some important proposals in that context.
	Other organisations, and indeed areas of government, can also provide funds and other support for small business, and Edinburgh city council has taken a number of important steps in that regard. It has provided the Creative Exchange, an incubator space that opened recently in Leith to provide affordable work space for up to 80 staff. A further example is the council’s procurement policy, which covers a £20 million information technology tender. The council wants at least 25% of the work to go to small businesses; the present contract is held by a single large company.
	Small business lending is also important. I was pleased to learn about discussions between the council and Capital Credit Union about the possibility of the union contributing an extra £1.3 million to the East of Scotland Investment Fund, which could provide loans for small businesses. The credit union is able to do that because of changes to corporate lending rules that allow community-based mutuals to offer loans to businesses. As someone
	who has a very small investment in Capital Credit Union, I am glad that it is at the forefront of that project. It is important to point out that the European regional development fund is also providing support, given the rather negative comments about Europe that we hear from certain Members in the House.

William Bain: In Edinburgh, as in Glasgow, there are many small exporting companies. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be doing much more to establish a more proactive relationship with such companies through UK Trade & Investment? I had to draw the attention of a company I visited recently to the services provided by UKTI. Would not such action by the Government benefit small exporters in Edinburgh as well as those in my constituency?

Mark Lazarowicz: It would obviously benefit businesses in constituencies throughout the United Kingdom.
	Another initiative undertaken by the city council is the Edinburgh guarantee, which brings together local government, businesses, colleges, the voluntary sector and national programmes at Scottish, UK and European levels to create opportunities for our young people. Since its establishment just over two years ago, it has generated more than 1,000 job, apprenticeship and internship opportunities for school leavers. Many small businesses have been closely involved in the project, and I congratulate the council on what it has achieved.
	However, if councils are to provide all the support for small businesses that they ought to be able to provide, they need to have the powers that would enable them to do that to the full. Local government powers in Scotland are obviously the responsibility of the Scottish rather than the United Kingdom Government, but the fact remains that local authorities can perform an important task in supporting small business. Those that are already doing a good job should be congratulated, while those that are not should learn from them.
	Although I want to be positive, I should add that we must not ignore the real pressures on small businesses. Cost pressure is an important factor that needs to be addressed. During Energy and Climate Change questions, the Government once again refused to accept the merits of Labour’s proposal for an energy price freeze, which would be of real benefit to small businesses as well as householders. It is disappointing that the Government still refuse to accept the strength of our argument, but in a world of Government U-turns, who knows what their policy may be next week?

Justin Tomlinson: It is a real pleasure to have the opportunity to speak now, which is in no small part because I am due in Westminster Hall at 3 o’clock to lead a debate on retail and the high street. I shall therefore be relatively brief. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) not only for securing this debate, but for delivering a speech in which she was characteristically passionate about business. It is a credit to her campaign that so many Members on both sides of the House have come to support today’s important debate.
	I am passionate about this subject. At school, I was for ever wheeling and dealing. If anyone needed anything, I was the man to speak to. Shortly after graduating, I set up my own printing and marketing company, which
	employed local people in my constituency. I sold it as soon as I got elected, however; it is a busy lark being an MP. I was incredibly proud to be given the opportunity to be a small business ambassador and, obviously, to work with the fantastic Minister for Skills and Enterprise, as well as the inspirational Karren Brady, which certainly impressed my wife, who very much liked her book.
	I want to talk about some of the positive things the Government have done. We can all celebrate the fact that there are more than 400,000 new businesses, which have helped to create 1.4 million new jobs. The new employment allowance, which comes in on 1 January, is a welcome measure from the Government that will help to push that even further forward. We can celebrate the fact that we now have an extra 500,000 apprenticeships. The start-up loans scheme has celebrated its 10,000th loan, with its loans totalling £50 million. Crucially, that scheme has allowed those 10,000 firms to take on a further 10,000 people, so for each new firm, an additional job has been created, which is fantastic. The red tape challenge is also brilliant, not least because we have asked businesses to suggest which pieces of red tape need to be removed.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend is making very good points, and I would also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing the debate. Many small businesses and micro-businesses believe that they get by despite the actions of the Government, rather than because of them, so all the things that we are doing to roll back red tape are absolutely right. Small businesses are creating jobs, but they want to be loved, especially by the Government. Over the years they have not felt loved, and that is what I am looking to the Minister and the Government to deliver.

Justin Tomlinson: I very much love businesses, so I will send some love to my hon. Friend’s constituency.
	It is great that businesses are suggesting the areas of red tape that need to be looked at, because they are very much at the coal face. Removing two regulations for every one introduced is a real challenge, but the initiative has certainly been welcomed by businesses in my constituency.
	Several Members have talked about opening up local authority procurement, which is worth about £4.4 billion a year, and the Government have the commendable aim of getting SME participation in that to about 25%. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), who has had to leave the Chamber, has got hold of some of the forms that small businesses have to fill in when bidding for such contracts. I know that, when I ran a business, it simply was not worth the hassle.
	I also very much welcome the increase in the annual investment allowance from £25,000 to £250,000. One problem that we identified was the fact that, for the first time in living memory, businesses had more money in their current accounts than they were choosing to borrow, because they were worried about uncertainty in the market. Increasing the allowance is a brilliant way to encourage businesses to start unlocking some of that money, which will drive forward growth.
	Cutting corporation tax always brings a cheer from Members on this side of the House. Although Labour says that it supports business, it is telling that that
	support seems to vanish as soon as a business makes a profit. I also welcome the extension of small business rate relief.

Toby Perkins: The hon. Gentleman talks about corporation tax. Will he tell the House the rate of corporation tax when Labour came to power in 1997, and what it was when we left office in 2010?

Justin Tomlinson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, by 2015, we will have the lowest corporation tax market in the G8. That is what businesses are talking about, and I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in supporting that aim.
	Many Members have highlighted the need to look at business rates. Greater minds than mine will solve the dilemma, but it is important to recognise that the world is changing. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) mentioned Amazon’s advantages over a traditional high street retailer because of the business rates that it pays. We must recognise that the world is changing and take that into account if we are to achieve a fair business rates system. The 27,000 business mentors are also crucial—I will come back to that subject in a moment—and the enterprise zones and the regional growth fund are kick-starting growth in key areas, which is most welcome.
	Staying with the good things, I know that the Minister is particularly excited about the request that I am about to make—it is one that I make repeatedly—and that he is absolutely going to deliver on it. We as a Government are doing many good things, but business people are by their nature extremely busy and, all too often, these good schemes simply pass them by. However, the one thing that they cannot avoid is their bills, and every year they are sent a business rates bill. Even if they have nothing to pay, they are sent a bill telling them how much they would have had to pay but for the fact that the Government are allowing them not to do so. We should be communicating all the Government’s schemes through that mailer. The taxpayer has already paid for the mail, so let us include with it information on all the things that we are encouraging businesses to sign up for, and particularly on the advantages of taking on apprentices and of working with UKTI to develop exports.
	I want briefly to focus on championing young entrepreneurs. I was the only one of the 350 students on my business degree course who went on to set up their own business. We all arrived at university keen to do just that, but we had entrepreneurial flair and risk-taking talked out of us. I obviously was not paying enough attention, because I ended up running my own business. The Government help to fund an organisation called the National Association of College and University Entrepreneurs, which encourages young people to take up practical, real-life opportunities for running a business. I have met a number of the young people who have taken advantage of those opportunities and who are now going on to be part of the next generation of wealth generators.
	We need to look at what happens in business degrees. Along with all my fellow students, I was given a placement job in the corporate environment, rather than having the opportunity to test running my own business. We could use spare space at a university to run a retail business—that is very apt, given my forthcoming Westminster Hall debate. We could also consider whether
	part of a placement year could be spent running a business, as that might allow us to encourage a few more of those potential young entrepreneurs to take the step towards that.
	We can also do a lot more for people before they go to university. For people who want to go to university, the UCAS system is in place—the conveyor belt is there. People choose their course and, if they get their grades, they head off to university. If people want to be an apprentice, they can look at the fantastic websites available, see what type of thing they would like to be an apprentice in, and go forward to the interviews. However, if someone wants to start their own business, it is pretty much up to them to work out how to do that, so we need to do a lot more to get those 20,000 business mentors to young people.
	We have to celebrate schemes such as the Young Enterprise challenge, but we need to ensure that they are not just a one-off opportunity for enjoyment. I took part when I was at school—we worked for a week, made quite a bit of money and really enjoyed it. I recently did something with Swindon college students whereby we got stalls in the local market—a tough trading environment. Seven teams were each given £10 of seed money, and all the money raised on the day went to charity. We raised about £800 for the Prospect hospice, but the crucial bit was that we did not have mentors just at the beginning; we had them at the end.
	One lady called Jessica ran a cake stall. Millions of people think about running such a stall, but she realised that the market had an older customer base, so she set up a 1950s-themed cake stall. She made more than £100 on the day. She realised that she had the customer service ability, the skills and the innovation to set up her own business, and now that she has finished at college, she has set up the Little Lemon & Poppy Bakery. We made sure that mentors were in place to help to guide her after she used her initial burst of enthusiasm and went on to do that. I ask the Minister to do all that he can to encourage young people. They have the energy and the enthusiasm, so let us make sure they are a key part of that next generation of wealth generators.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have to inform the House that we have another debate this afternoon and we are running out of time. The Minister and the shadow Minister need to be on their feet by 25 past 3. I am going to set a time limit of five minutes and I ask the remaining Members to make sure they share that fairly among themselves. If they do not do so, somebody will not get to speak. In other words, if there are lots of interventions, somebody will fall off the end of today’s speaking list.

Alok Sharma: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing this debate. She is a huge champion of small and micro-businesses, and more power to her elbow.
	Before the last election many of us were going around meeting small businesses in our constituencies, and businesses in Reading were telling me three things. The
	first was that they were drowning in red tape and regulation. The second was that they had to deal with an excessive burden of taxation. The third was that they faced issues relating to access to finance. Many Government Members have already pointed out areas where the Government have made a real effort to address all three issues: the red tape challenge; the one-in, two-out policy; cutting back on the regulations that micro-businesses have to deal with; the upcoming deregulation Bill—perhaps the Minister will give us an update on that; the reduction in the headline corporation tax rate; extended small business rate relief; the funding for lending scheme; the enterprise finance guarantee scheme; and a plethora of schemes to get debt and equity provision for start-ups and growing businesses, which are on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills website and are now starting to be delivered through the British Business Bank. Of course the one scheme that the Government have not been responsible for, which perhaps the shadow Minister could tell us about, is the Co-op bank soft loans scheme, which has been available to only a restricted number of people.
	A friend of mine who works in business and is not particularly partisan politically has acknowledged that the Government have made a huge effort in cutting red tape. However, as he says, perhaps the time has come not just to take an axe to red tape, but to take a chainsaw to unnecessary red tape and regulation. I am pleased that we have gone from one-in, one-out to one-in, two-out, but why not one-in, three-out or none-in, four-out? One reason for not doing that is that the Government are constrained by EU regulation. I welcome what the Prime Minister said following the proposals made by his business taskforce on cutting back EU regulation. I understand that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition referred to a tweet containing “#greencrap”. I have just started tweeting, and am thinking about tweeting after this debate with #EUredtapecrap, because of the enormous amount of EU regulation that is holding back our businesses. The issue of increasing competitiveness is felt not just in the UK but by Governments in Berlin, Stockholm, Amsterdam and perhaps even Paris.
	If Opposition Members really care about business, they should back the European Union (Referendum) Bill. I hope they will turn up tomorrow to support it, because that is the best way of delivering change in the EU and ensuring that we get rid of some of this regulation.
	In the remaining two minutes, I have two quick points. One relates to simplifying the tax system overall through the merger or the simplification of income tax and national insurance, and the second is about closing the equity funding gap.
	In the 2011 Budget, the Chancellor talked about merging national insurance and income tax. A consultation was held, and the decision was made not to take the idea forward. None the less, the idea is totemic. I know that it is difficult and that there are anomalies, but we should consider merging those two taxes. The reality is that national insurance is just another tax. People should understand that the tax they are paying is not 20% as a basic rate taxpayer but 32%. If they saw that on their pay slips and in their annual tax statements, they would realise that we are all paying a bit too much tax. They would end up preferring parties that propose cutting taxes rather than raising them. Perhaps we will hear something on that from the Minister.
	My final point is to do with equity finance. The start-up loan scheme is brilliant. It is a flagship scheme that has worked really well; it is simple and is able to get lending out very quickly. It would be great to see a British equity funding scheme, which would also help to deploy capital quickly across many areas of business.
	I am running out of time, so I shall stop at that point. I acknowledge that the Government do a huge amount, but there is still some way for them to go. I am sure that the Minister will tell us of his plans.

John Stevenson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing this debate. She was absolutely right to highlight the importance of small businesses to the success not just of our national economy but of local economies up and down the country. Clearly, we all support small businesses and we all want to see them succeed. Indeed all large businesses were once small ones, and the big businesses of tomorrow are the start-ups and small businesses of today.
	However, it is all very well to talk about support, but there needs to be practical advice and policies in place that give start-ups, sole traders and small businesses the full support that they need to prosper and succeed. Most businesses in this country are small. The vast majority of those people employed in the private sector work for small businesses. In many respects it is the owners and workers in those enterprises who are the unsung heroes of our economy.
	Let me take, for example, a small business in my constituency of Carlisle, with, say, five employees. That business pays business rates, which helps the local and national economy, employer’s national insurance and corporation tax. It will collect VAT, and it may well pay VAT itself. It makes a huge contribution to the national economy. It also conducts business with other local enterprises, helping to create a more economically active local economy. In addition, it provides employment to five families, providing them with a standard of living and supporting their lifestyles. There is also often a wider benefit to the community. The business owner may well live in the area, contributing socially to the community through membership of other organisations. They are often on school boards, local charities and sports clubs.
	My principal contribution to this debate relates to the role that local government should play in supporting small businesses. We should remember that the vast majority of business people will have absolutely nothing to do with central Government or Government Departments such as BIS and, with the greatest respect to the Minister, will probably never come in contact with a Minister. The most important people in government with whom business people are likely to come into contact will probably be from the local council, a local councillor or perhaps an MP.
	I accept that much is made of the contribution, involvement and policy decisions of central Government. Central Government clearly have a significant if not central role to play. They set the general environment in which business can or should flourish and create a framework within which business will function. Nevertheless, we should not and must not underestimate
	the role that local government must play in supporting and encouraging small businesses to flourish and succeed in their area.
	Local councils, local councillors and officers can make a substantial difference in a number of key areas. The obvious one is planning, where the local plan can be made as business-friendly as possible. The administration process should be as efficient as it can be and issues for small businesses should be highlighted early so that they do not incur unnecessary costs. The second such area is property ownership. Local councils are often property owners; for example Carlisle city council, believe it or not, has about £100 million worth of commercial property. It can make a difference by using that to good effect. The third area, as has been highlighted, is procurement. It is not necessarily the big contracts that matter; the small ones can make a real difference to small businesses. Local enterprise partnerships are also important. Councils have a role and are often on the boards, and LEPs need to be pro-business and to help develop policies that support small businesses in flourishing.
	There are two other key points. We need small business support and engagement with those local professionals who can help businesses: surveyors, accountants, bankers and lawyers. Indeed, we should encourage relationships with the local chamber of commerce or the Federation of Small Businesses, with encouragement on business plans, finance, employment and other such matters that will help businesses to succeed.
	Most importantly, local government can provide leadership. It can give local small businesses a sense that the council supports and will support them and that there is a vision and a sense of direction for the area of which the businesses are a part.
	I want to highlight that the responsibility to engage with and support small business from a government point of view does not lie merely with central Government; it is important that local government plays its part.

Mark Pawsey: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on introducing the debate. I particularly appreciate her work on the definition of “small business”. The Government’s definition of small business is one that employs 250 employees or turns over £50 million. That is a pretty substantial business and I applaud how she has raised the profile of what we would probably call micro-businesses. I suspect that most of the debate has been about micro-businesses rather than small businesses.
	I ran a micro-business, a business I started from scratch in 1982, so I know about the pressure of ensuring that there is enough money in the bank account to meet the monthly salary bill. I am therefore delighted that the Government have recognised the importance of small businesses and the number of such businesses that have been created. Along with other Members, I champion the small businesses in my constituency that are raising their profile through small business Saturday. I shall visit four new businesses that have been formed in the past year and opened in the past four months. I am looking forward to seeing what they are doing.
	I made the point in an intervention that every big business started out as a small business. Big businesses are often large employers, but if we want to provide
	employment for all our citizens, we need to consider how to encourage small businesses to grow. In my constituency, there are more small businesses than people looking for work and I suspect that that applies across the country. If every small business was encouraged to take on one additional member of staff, there would be no one looking for work. That hit me quite hard when I met a successful one-man band who was telling me how busy he was and that he was running around like a nutcase trying to keep all his customers happy. I said, “That’s great isn’t it? No doubt you’ll be expanding and taking on somebody else in the business.” He said, “No, I don’t want any of that trouble headache and hassle. I would much rather stick as I am.” We need to change that perception, so it is important for us to consider some of the obstacles that hold people back.
	One of that small business man’s biggest concerns was employment legislation. I understand the concerns of Opposition Members that there should be a fair relationship between employer and employee, but in a micro-business the employer and employee get to know each other pretty well. They often work side by side in manufacturing the goods or delivering the service. I would argue that many smaller businesses may not need the employment protection measures that larger companies in need of more formal arrangements require.
	The move from one year to two before an employee can bring a case in an employment tribunal is a step in the right direction, but we could look at one or two other areas such as parental leave rules. Transferable parental leave disproportionately disadvantages small businesses, which may lose a key member of staff, often at pretty short notice. We could consider making some exemptions for micro-businesses or those with a turnover of less than £5 million or fewer than 25 staff.
	I am also concerned about access to suitable business premises as we move out of the recession. Jones Lang LaSalle reported in March that there was little speculative industrial property development taking place. I am worried that accommodation will not be available. My business started in very low-cost old buildings. Such buildings have now in many cases been demolished to avoid vacant business rates. I am bothered that access to the internet has encouraged lots of fledgling small businesses to start, often in niche markets, operating from home, perhaps in a residential area, and as they grow they will need small units, which we do not have. Developers have not been providing small units. It is much easier for a developer to provide one unit of 50,000 square feet than 10 units of 5,000 square feet, and we need to address that problem.
	Lastly, I would like to deal with an issue that is not for Government but is about a culture change. As a salesmen in my business, I would like to see more appreciation for salesmen. They are the people who end the manufacturing process; the services would not get delivered were it not for the salesman persuading the customer to buy them. Salesmen have an unfortunate reputation, and I would like to see some credit given to the profession, with proper recognition and status. Their skills are invaluable, especially in export markets where not only our small businesses but the country as a whole prosper if the salesmen do well.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and other hon. Members on securing the debate.
	Before I came into politics, I used to wholesale fruit and veg. It was a family firm, which my father started and grew to a decent size. Then I had all the disputes that every son taking over a family firm has with their father, when they tell their sons that they are not doing it right, but we managed to sneak up the turnover of this fruit and veg business, working nights in New Covent Garden, to £7 million a year employing 17 people. We did it in spite of rather than because of the Government. Some of my points will be based on those old experiences, which small businesses in my constituency tell me they still face.
	One of the best parts of our jobs as Members of Parliament is going to see small businesses and people taking risks to do good things and start employment in our constituencies. My constituency, like that of every other Member who has spoken, is full of amazing and surprising small businesses. I have a company called Bambino Mio, one of the largest companies dealing in reusable nappies. It started 15 years ago and now exports to almost 70 countries across the world. Another company is Daisy Roots. Many Members with children and grandchildren will have bought a pair of Daisy Roots shoes without knowing about it. EllaPure is a company direct selling all-natural skincare products. It was started by an 18-year-old lad two or three years ago, whom the shadow Minister met at a lunch with me not so long ago. He is a very impressive individual. Those three businesses all come from one small village, Brixworth.
	I know that the Government have done lots of good stuff. I am delighted to be behind a Government who have created 1.4 million new private sector jobs since 2010, who are cutting national insurance, benefiting every firm by £2,000 next year, and who have allowed people to start 400,000 new British businesses. One of the things we do really well in this country is enable companies to set up quickly. It is a very simple process, which takes away a lot of the confusion. We have a very good scheme for enterprise zones. Neighbouring my constituency is Northampton, where the Northampton Waterside enterprise zone’s plans to change the face of the town for the better can already been seen.
	However, there are many issues that affect micro and small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about employing people. Businesses take a massive risk when they start employing people. Perhaps some Members had never done that before taking people on in their offices here. Any Member who has had a dispute with an employee will understand how difficult it must be for a small business, which might have only one or two employees, when a relationship with an employee does not work and the risk that such employment involves.
	Many small businesses complain about bureaucracy. I think we are doing reasonably well on that. Perhaps we could do more, but the thing that I think we could do better is to open up procurement in the public sector. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that we have got rid of a whole tranche of things and that businesses no longer need to provide three years’ worth of audited
	accounts before being able to bid for Government work. That might have been the policy change and what we are trying to implement, but a small business in my constituency called Mapcite, based in my village, was told that only a couple of weeks ago by the Department with which it was trying to deal. Then there are issues relating to rural broadband, which we are sorting out but which we need to get right. Rural broadband is ultra-important.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because it allows me to wish him all the best of luck for his special day. He said that he started working in his family business. Will he also herald the value that family businesses provide in our economy and, in particular, the work of the Institute for Family Business?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Yes is the simple answer to my hon. Friend. I have noted the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and promise to finish on time.
	We need to be positive about entrepreneurship in this country. We have a very good reputation across the globe. Amway, one of the biggest direct sellers in the United Kingdom, has 40,000 small businesses working for it. It did a big survey of people’s attitudes to becoming entrepreneurs, and we did not have a bad rate, because 77% of people thought that we have a positive atmosphere in which to build entrepreneurship. However, factors that worked against coming into business included fear of failure, which is a big deal. It is a psychological barrier that a person has to get over when they start a small business. Public funding and start-up loans are pretty indispensible in helping to get over the fear of failure, because people know they have something behind them when they start in addition to their brilliant idea.
	I will be celebrating small business Saturday at the iCon centre in Daventry, where there will be a huge networking event for small businesses in my constituency. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot once again on securing the debate.

Andrew Stunell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for finding time to fit me in. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing the debate. We have heard some very good contributions indeed. In the short time available, I want to focus on the part of the motion that refers to encouraging the Government to improve access to finance. The Government have certainly done some very good things in the past three years. They have worked nationally and locally, and I refer in particular to the work UK Trade & Investment has done in my constituency, the work of GrowthAccelerator and the success of the apprenticeship scheme.
	I will focus briefly on access to finance from banks for my local businesses. Twelve months ago I secured an Adjournment debate on that topic, bringing to the House the cases of four businesses in my constituency and the difficulty they have had in gaining access to finance from four different banks. As a consequence, I took a deputation of local businesses to see the banking Minister. We met the British Bankers Association and had a representative of the Federation of Small Businesses with us. That discussion produced an assurance from
	the BBA that it would increase its publicity on access to the appeals system, because if a business is refused a loan there is an appeals system.
	The BBA announced with some pride that in the first two years of the appeals process run by the banks, a satisfactory lending agreement was found in 40% of cases where the decline of a loan to a business was appealed against. This was said to be a cause for congratulations. Let me point out that in any appeals system, an approval rating of 40% suggests that there is a problem with that system. Will Treasury Ministers inform me of the distribution of that 40% appeal rate between different banks? Which banks succeeded in getting it right and which failed to do so? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider requiring banks to notify in writing all small businesses whose loan application is declined that they have a right of appeal, because this was not known to many of the businesses in my constituency that had had such a refusal?
	I have to say to the Minister that the answer I received on 30 October was rather bland and unhelpful. It was, in essence, a reprint of the BBA’s press release, and it added no further information. I want to see whether he can improve on that, either in what he says today or by reference to his Treasury colleagues as to what they might supply to the House subsequently. The answer did not explain or offer any view on whether a 40% overturning rate for the appeals system was a sign of success or failure. It was also entirely silent about whether there was to be any requirement on banks to follow through refusals of loans with better information for companies on how to appeal.
	In the past three years, we have done excellent work that has paid real dividends, but local businesses in my constituency still have a fundamental problem in getting the access to finance to which they are entitled. One of the ironies is that one of those companies, which was refused a loan of £12,000 for business development, was subsequently offered—by the same bank—an unsecured loan of £16,000 to purchase a car. That emphasises the problems that the system still faces.

Toby Perkins: It is a tremendous pleasure to speak in what has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing it. She speaks about small businesses with passion, dedication, enthusiasm and considerable vim, which I can inform the House, having been at the National Association of Commercial Finance Brokers dinner with her on Tuesday, is also the way she dances.
	We have heard a tremendous amount about the importance of small businesses. As the challengers of tired orthodoxies and the drivers of social mobility, small businesses share one nation Labour’s values completely. It is a path that several of us have followed, as reflected in the debate. I worked in the private sector for my entire life and was running a small business when I became a Member of Parliament. From my perspective and, clearly, that of hon. Members across the House, there are few more important questions for us to consider than how we support small firms, which we all know are the engines of growth, the biggest employers of the long-term unemployed, and key drivers of economic recovery.
	It is important that we listen to what the voices of business are saying. On Monday, I was in Harlow in Essex with the local chamber of commerce, meeting small businesses there and listening to their priorities. Another organisation right at the forefront of the fight to support small firms is the Federation of Small Businesses, which does a tremendous job. A report in the Leicester Mercury this week highlighted how a delegation from the east midlands, led by David Nicholls, chairman of the Leicestershire branch of the FSB, got the chance to lobby the Chancellor on the issues that he should address in his forthcoming autumn statement. What did the delegation choose to highlight? Interestingly, the Leicester Mercury tells us that they demanded action on energy prices, a reduction in businesses rates, and the Government taking responsibility for setting up a business bank—very wise indeed.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for securing the debate, but think she may have done so with a slightly heavy heart, because when it comes to the main issues being raised by small businesses, it is Labour that is leading the way. I want to reflect on some of the contributions to this balanced debate that have demonstrated that.
	In her excellent speech, the hon. Lady talked about the need for a culture change that recognises the importance of small business across Government. We could not agree more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made making Labour the party of small business a priority in his first conference speech and he has talked about it many times since. There are some good Government schemes out there but, as the hon. Lady said, many businesses do not know about them. The signposting is weak, and she was right to say that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) discussed the lessons we can learn from the Sparkassen in Germany. He was right to say that, under the German system and at the height of the banking crisis, they lent more to small businesses, not fewer, as happened here. He was also right to focus on the important issue of the number of businesses claiming that access to finance is still their No. 1 priority, a theme that the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) returned to a few moments ago.
	The hon. Members for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) were right to focus on the difficulty faced by small and medium-sized enterprises in getting on to Government procurement lists. It has been an issue for many years and clearly there is a long way to go.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) also spoke.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He will be aware that earlier this year I chaired an all-party inquiry into late payments. The key finding was that late payment is a cultural issue that needs to be seen as just as toxic as tax evasion. Does he agree that we need to push the Government to make progress towards ensuring there is a cultural change so that late payment is unacceptable?

Toby Perkins: I certainly do. I was in the process of paying tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done on that issue. She is absolutely right.
	The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), whom I usually regard as a sound voice on the issue of small business, said that if someone is paid late they should refuse to supply the company, but that does not recognise the difference in the relationship between a powerful customer and a struggling supplier. Every year, 2,000 businesses go under simply because they are not paid money that is owed to them, so I think he was wrong about that. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need the Government to be at the forefront of not just encouraging people to pay on time, but ensuring that that culture change passes right down the public sector procurement chain to second and third-tier suppliers.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) made a lengthy advertisement—I sense it was somewhat to his embarrassment—for Danczuk’s deli. Numerous Members wanted to know about the excellent wares he will be providing. He has been in business before and it is great that he and his wife are opening a delicatessen in the centre of Rochdale and that he is putting his money where his mouth is.
	The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) spoke, among many others, about the tremendous difficulties caused by the increase in business rates, which I shall return to.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) promoted the value of local innovative firms and also focused on access to finance. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) is not in his place. [Interruption.] I see that he has moved—I do not know how I managed to miss that moustache. He encapsulated the bravery and pioneering spirit required to set up a business and he was right to say that it doesn’t half set the pulses racing. At such moments, people realise what colour adrenaline is.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) was entirely right to say that small businesses are undergoing a cost of living crisis, which I will reflect on in a moment.
	The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said that Labour always liked to increase corporation tax. If he was still here, he would be surprised to discover that corporation tax was actually 3% less after 13 years of Labour Government. Perhaps he should talk to the former Prime Minister about that.

Matthew Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether it is still Labour’s policy to increase corporation tax?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the shadow Minister answers the Minister, will they please remember that I will stop the debate at 3.45 pm? If the Minister is still on his feet at that point, he will lose the time, because we will have to start the next debate.

Toby Perkins: Our policy is well known, but I will go through it at length in a moment.
	The hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) spoke for only five minutes, but he was wrong about just about everything he said. I will give two examples. He said that businesses want an EU referendum, but very
	few businesses are telling me that. He extolled the virtues of the arbitrary one-in, two-out red tape challenge and seemed to think that the Government have a good record on red tape, but he was unable to name any of their innovations that have made a difference.
	The hon. Member for Rugby made an incredibly significant point about the importance of sales skills. I am sure he will be delighted to know that the Labour party is undertaking a large programme—headed by Kate Walsh, formerly of “The Apprentice”—on the importance of sales skills, and we will report on its work shortly.
	The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) focused broadly on the importance of small firms. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) was absolutely correct to say that the UK is right at the forefront of those places where it is easiest to set up a small business. The World Bank said that Britain was the fourth easiest place to set up a business in 2010.
	I do not want to focus on the Government’s failures, but on the successful moves that a future Labour Government will make. We are considering the future of vital small firms, and Labour has the answers to their questions. The cost of living crisis for small firms is taking many of them to the brink, but Labour’s pledge to freeze energy prices until 2017 would save the average British small business £5,000. Hon. Members will be shocked to learn that business rates have risen by £1,500 a year on average under this Government, and that they face a further hike in April 2014.
	To answer the Minister’s question, Labour proposes not to take forward the Government’s planned 1% corporation tax cut for 80,000 large firms, but instead to use all the money to cut the business rate bills of 1.5 million small firms. In a week of U-turns, it would be incredibly—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has now had 10 minutes. This is a Back-Bench debate, and it will be followed by another Back-Bench debate. I want him to conclude in his current sentence, so that I can call the Minister, who will also have 10 minutes.

Toby Perkins: I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. On a range of issues from micro-business support to the need for Government to provide the necessary skills, small businesses are saying that the Government have more work to do. Labour is responding to that call from small businesses, and our message to them is, “We know how vital you are, and we are right behind you.”

Matthew Hancock: This Government are passionate, as am I, about supporting small business. I grew up in one, and I hope that I not only listen to and speak for small business across Government, but understand what life is like in one, as do so many hon. Members who have spoken. The debate has reflected the strength of feeling across the House in support of small businesses, which we should do more to encourage and for which we should do more to make life easier. Why are we so passionate? Because, at root, small businesses are the ultimate fount of prosperity and jobs in our country.

Adrian Bailey: Does the Minister agree that one great virtue of small businesses is that they are embedded in their local communities and are often loyal to them, unlike npower in my constituency, which has just offshored 400 jobs? Will he use the power of his Department to work with local authorities, the LEP and the chamber of commerce to do its best to mitigate that loss?

Matthew Hancock: The Department is of course doing what it can to mitigate the impact of that decision. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who spoke passionately about the impact of small businesses, which are embedded in their local communities through jobs and their contributions to local and national life, as well as the role of local authorities in planning, property and procurement.
	There have been some fantastic contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), as well as recounting the various questions that she has asked at Prime Minister’s questions in the recent past, spoke about drilling enterprise through our education system, which I strongly support. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) also made that argument. Every time I speak to him, he seems to have another idea about how we can get more content about enterprise into the education system.
	Many Members raised the issue of red tape, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who spoke about the impact of EU red tape. Members across this House must recognise that problem. It is wrongly dismissed by some, but it is an important issue that we need to address. We are doing so through the Prime Minister’s challenge to the EU. The taskforce of six business leaders who are looking at reforming EU regulations is putting the voice of business at the heart of the debate. It has made 30 recommendations on how to remove or improve the most burdensome EU rules. We are working with business to encourage the EU to take up those recommendations over the next year.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) raised the issue of regulations on employers, especially with regard to micro-businesses. We have made progress by ensuring that employees cannot go to a tribunal until they have been employed for two years and by introducing fees for tribunals. We need to keep this area under constant review because, fundamentally, what we must do is make it easier to employ people and create jobs. That is what growing small businesses is all about.
	It is a great pleasure to see you take the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first time that I have been in a debate that you have chaired.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) was here earlier, but apologised that she had an engagement with some small businesses. I pay tribute to the work that she did to open up procurement to small businesses. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, what we are doing in that area is not complete. There is much more to do to improve the formal rules and to ensure that they are seen, exercised and stuck to not only across central Government, but throughout the public sector, including in local authorities. The Department for Business,
	Innovation and Skills has just reached the target of sending 25% of its invoices to small businesses. That target applies to the whole of central Government and all other Departments are working towards it.
	Many hon. Members raised the issues of access to finance and late payment, not least the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). The Government pay more than 85% of undisputed invoices within five days. That is a big change and an impressive feat.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the Minister confirm whether that includes suppliers in all tiers? I think that he is referring just to tier 1 suppliers.

Matthew Hancock: I was coming on to exactly that point. That figure refers to tier 1 and there is much more to do to drill prompt payments through the supply chain. We must spread that culture across the private sector as well. I will reflect on the hon. Lady’s point that we should make late payment just as culturally negative as tax avoidance and evasion. We will be launching a consultation on late payment shortly.
	The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) raised the issue of the banking appeals system. I do not want to pre-empt what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say in the autumn statement in a week’s time, so I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman attends the House on that day.
	Opposition Members raised various issues and spoke from different perspectives. The important issue of GRG and the treatment of small companies that have got into difficulties with the banks was raised. The Financial Conduct Authority is looking into the report that was published this week and RBS has appointed Clifford Chance to go through the cases that were raised in detail.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), in typically ebullient fashion, called for firm action and better communication of what we are doing. I certainly agree with him about firm action. That is what I hope to achieve.
	On better communication, we have launched the Business is Great campaign, which Members may see on billboards and social media across the country, and the Great Business website brings together in one place the different things the Government and private sector are doing to support small businesses. It is a single portal—greatbusiness.gov.uk—and worth exploring.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned access to finance, and particularly green measures. Although the Government have reduced the subsidy from energy bill payers and taxpayers to sponsor solar, by ensuring that the scheme was proportionate but still affordable, more than 1 million people are now living with solar panels on their roofs. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke passionately about starting his own business with his wife. I hope he gets the chance to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, who says he wants to ban Members from engaging in any outside employment, including a small business. I strongly hope that the idea that someone can
	run a small business and be an MP at the same time will continue because of the wealth of insight it brings to people in this place.
	There were good speeches from Opposition Members, and it was a pity there were so few of them, given that support from the Government Benches was very powerful. The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) raised the important issue of business rates. I am glad that one of the first things this Government did was stop the extension of business rates proposed by the previous Government because that would have been a great mistake. In fact, we have extended business rate relief every year, but I have no doubt that had the previous Government remained in office, they would have put up and extended business rates because that is what they were planning.

Julian Sturdy: Does the Minister agree that one of the key things for helping small businesses is encouraging them to reinvest? The Government have done a lot in extending the capital allowance scheme, but will he consider extending it beyond 1 January 2015?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I will, and I conclude by saying that Members across the House—especially Government Members—argued passionately in favour of small businesses, the values they bring, the hard work but the payback, and the benefits in terms of jobs and prosperity for their communities. None more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot who initiated the debate, and I pay tribute to all her work. If I have not addressed any point on the long list of issues she raised, I will write to her with a detailed response on each and every one. She is a great credit to herself and to small businesses that need such passionate support, and I know they are thrilled to have her at their side.

Anne-Marie Morris: This has been an incredible, energetic debate and I pay tribute to and thank my fellow sponsors and all those who have contributed with great knowledge, passion and understanding. Let the nation be in no doubt: this House supports small businesses in all their different guises, and they are key to growth and social mobility. I hope the Minister realises that more than 100 ideas have been raised today, so if he takes them all up it will be quite a long letter. I hope that the Minister and the Chancellor will demonstrate that they are listening in the autumn statement and indeed the Budget, but let us conclude this debate by celebrating small businesses and telling them, “We love you, and we will show that on small business Saturday on 7 December.”
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House encourages the Government to consider what further measures can be taken to encourage small business to flourish and prosper, including reducing the burden of red tape, addressing the complex tax structure, improving access to finance and gaining support from local government.

G8 Summit on Dementia

Tracey Crouch: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the G8 summit on dementia.
	It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is the first opportunity I have had to give you my warm congratulations on your election.
	I am incredibly grateful for the support of the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), and others, for helping to secure this debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing Members time to contribute—albeit briefly—to a debate on what many believe is one of the most important issues facing our health and social care system in the future. I shall keep my opening comments as brief as possible, as I know that others wish to speak, but it is important to congratulate the Prime Minister on using the opportunity of hosting the G8 summit on 11 December to focus on international efforts to prevent, delay and effectively treat dementia. The debate will allow parliamentarians an opportunity to shape discussions at the summit, following on from wider and commendable consultation with the public. Collaboration, which is at the heart of the conference, is the basis of my contribution to the debate.
	Before addressing the specifics, it is important to set out the global perspective. Dementia affects more than 35 million people worldwide and is now considered to be one of the greatest global health challenges of our time. It is estimated that, by 2050, more than 150 million people will suffer from dementia.
	Hon. Members will have seen the devastating human cost of dementia if not in their families, then in their constituencies. We know of the suffering of those with the condition and those who become carers for their loved ones. However, we perhaps do not so obviously see the huge economic effects of dementia, the worldwide cost of which is estimated to be about £400 billion, which is the equivalent of 1% of world gross domestic product. Without urgent action, that figure will increase in line with the number of people who are anticipated to get dementia, which is why global collaboration is essential. The more we can do together globally, the better the outcomes we can secure nationally.

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Does she accept, however, that it is equally important to do more on seeking diagnoses? About 350,000 people in this country are undiagnosed and go without the help and support that those who have been diagnosed receive.

Tracey Crouch: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The all-party group on dementia recently produced a report on diagnosis. Shockingly, only about 42% of people get diagnosed, which leaves a massive diagnosis gap. The earlier people are diagnosed, the better their treatment and pathways.

Andrew Miller: I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing the debate. I hope she will hear later some of the evidence that the Science and Technology Committee has taken on variant
	Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and of the important work of the Medical Research Council prion unit, which could lead to exciting new possibilities for the treatment and diagnosis of people with all sorts of dementia. Does she agree that it is important to maintain such research programmes?

Tracey Crouch: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I will hear more later of the initiatives his Committee is examining. The importance of research is very much the basis of my speech.
	Hon. Members may talk about many aspects of dementia, but I shall address four, the first of which is investment. The statistics are gloomy, but there is a good-news story underlying the negative numbers: people are living longer and people can live well with dementia. We need to capitalise on best practice and ensure that we maximise people’s ability to maintain long-term well-being, despite their debilitating condition. Although we do not have a cure for dementia, we have come on leaps and bounds in recent years. A cure is hopefully no longer a lifetime away, but to ensure that we make that cure happen, we need to take action.
	Dementia costs the UK economy £23 billion a year, which is more than cancer, stroke or heart disease, but the annual research spend on dementia is about £51 million. The research spend on cancer is £521 million —10 times more—yet dementia costs society much more than cancer annually. I therefore welcome the increase in investment in dementia research through the Government’s themed initiatives, which has resulted in Government investment more than doubling over four years. However, the investment comes from a low base and represents less than 1% of the overall science budget.

Zac Goldsmith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. It is widely believed—it has recently been widely reported in scientific journals, including by scientists who will take part in the G8 meeting—that up to half of all Alzheimer’s cases can be attributed to modifiable and therefore preventable risk factors. If that is the case, and there seems to a general consensus along those lines, does she share my disappointment that, as far as I can see, none of the additional £22 million allocated for dementia research has been spent on prevention research?

Tracey Crouch: I am sure that the Minister will have heard the good point that my hon. Friend makes. I would like to concentrate on the fact that there has been an increase in investment for research. There are various reasons why we need research, and I am sure the Minister will address my hon. Friend’s comments in his response.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady rightly talks about the low investment base from which we are starting on dementia research and prevention. One way to make limited resources go further is to co-ordinate properly and better across the regions and nations of the UK. There is good work going on in Wales, but that is also from a low base.

Tracey Crouch: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We need greater co-operation and collaboration across the world, and if that is needed across the world, we certainly need it at home.
	We should recognise that the USA is committed to spending $550 million on dementia research, which is a reflection of the importance of the condition to its society. To be frank, however, the combined investment by the USA and the UK is small fry compared with the investment in research by the pharmaceutical industry. Any collaboration needs to include the global pharma leaders to ensure that they are financing research, bringing together their world-leading scientists and helping to achieve the breakthrough in the prevention and treatment of dementia that we all want. One of the most important outcomes I would like from the G8 summit is a long-term commitment to double investment in research to provide stable and predictable funding so that we can get closer to finding a cure and improved care.

Madeleine Moon: Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the problem is the fact that we use the term “dementia” as if it is just one thing? There are many dementias and we must not focus just on Alzheimer’s. We must be aware of frontotemporal dementias, which affect younger people in particular, and ensure there is funding for research into that.

Tracey Crouch: I agree entirely. This is something that blights many conditions, including cancer. We talk about cancer investment, but there is little or no research funding for some cancers. Mesothelioma is a classic example, about which there is a debate on Monday.
	It is essential that research focuses on investment in infrastructure. Training and development for researchers is also crucial if we are to see swifter progress towards treatments and cures for dementia. However, it remains hard for an academic with a good idea to spin that off to a company, especially compared with the situation in America. The Government must do more to promote the commercialisation of research as these companies become a vital part of the ecosystem. Large companies and academia can then be partnered in the innovative collaborations that the Government seek.
	Research on the provision of care is equally important. Four out of five people with dementia live at home. We want to keep it that way and to ensure that they can live there safely for as long as possible. Research comes in many different forms, including the identification of what works. We know that dementia costs the UK £23 billion, but arguably that money is not being spent properly or efficiently. Prevention is key. Avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions is vital to ensuring that funding is used effectively and, more importantly, makes a huge improvement in quality of life. Researching best practice in care is essential. An economic case developed by the Alzheimer’s Society estimated that if just 5% of admissions to residential care were delayed for one year as a result of dementia-friendly communities, there would be a net saving of £55 million a year across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	There needs to be a change in the language we use when we talk about care. If we talk about weekly art lessons that are provided to help to improve cognitive function as therapy, rather than an activity, we could hope to see a change in attitude towards research and investment in this area. Many good ideas are having a positive impact in local communities. For example, Medway council, which covers part of my constituency,
	is promoting telecare as a means of supporting people with dementia, and there are lots of non-clinical treatments that could be further researched, such as the benefits of pets and petting animals for people with dementia, memory rooms and memory boxes. I have even heard of amazing innovative products such as wristbands that monitor someone’s usual actions so that they will detect if they have a fall. We need to consider all those things in the whole pod of research.
	We should not forget to consider support for carers. Family carers of people with dementia save the economy £7 billion a year, but evidence shows that they struggle to do that, which can lead to avoidable crises in care, hospital admissions or early entry into care homes, all of which are very costly. The Dementia Action Alliance’s “Carers Call to Action” campaign, which I support, is calling for timely and tailored support for carers, whom I am sure we all agree are an important cog in the wheel of treating and providing for those with dementia.
	On best practice, it is important that international collaboration includes the beneficial sharing of successes and failures. In utilising our resources, it is important that we do not duplicate unsuccessful investments and that we champion successful and effective progress. The summit should therefore ensure that all publicly funded dementia research data and results are made available, thereby allowing common factors in national research responses to be shared.

Roger Gale: Before my hon. Friend moves deeply into the main subject of the debate, which is the G8 summit, does she agree that we need much greater public understanding of, and support for, those who are caring for people with dementia and those with the condition, which can strike not just elderly people, but younger people? Some of us remember a former and much-loved Member of this House who, while still an MP, suffered from the disease. This is something that we have to ram home to people.

Tracey Crouch: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is important to note that society has made much progress in the past 20 years and that dementia is not the taboo subject it perhaps used to be. We have changed how we think about it and now treat people with dementia much better, but we still need to get away from the idea of saying, “Nan’s gone a bit dotty.” We have to understand that something can be done about dementia and that proper care pathways exist to ensure that people can live well with it, and we have to support carers as best we can.
	On the G8 summit, I turn to my final but no less important point: long-term strategies. The Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia for England has provided a welcome focus on the treatment and care of people living with dementia and the search for a cure, but there is a danger that the focus will be lost, especially as the initiative is not UK-wide but covers only England. Many countries have dementia strategies or brain bank initiatives, and the UK needs a new long-term strategy, because the current one is due to expire in 2014. I would be grateful if—not today but soon—the Minister could outline his plans to evaluate the national dementia strategy for England and tell the House when he will commit to a new strategy following the current strategy’s expiration next year. Notably, the US has a dementia strategy in place until 2025, which means that we could
	be left in the embarrassing situation of the UK Government leading the G8 in a discussion on dementia without a national long-term commitment comparable with that of many of their international partners.
	In conclusion, it is fantastic that the UK Government, under the Prime Minister’s personal commitment, are using the G8 summit to champion a more collaborative approach to preventing, treating and curing dementia, but it is essential that the legacy of this summit goes further than the G8 and that the declaration and communiqué of the summit makes firm long-term commitments to the doubling of research funding, to sharing best practice, and to delivering an international ongoing collaboration on defeating this devastating disease, which affects so many people and their families.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Several hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak, but we have only one hour remaining, so I shall impose a limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Hazel Blears: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), my colleague on the all-party group. It is also a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is my first opportunity to contribute to a debate under your chairmanship, and I would like to congratulate you on your election.
	While I am handing out congratulations, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister, too, on the personal commitment he has shown on dementia. [Interruption.] Credit where it is due. Those who have the presidency of the G8 have an opportunity to name a subject around which they would like to mobilise the international community. In playing his card at the G8, the Prime Minister has chosen dementia. I commend him for taking that action. I believe that international collaboration will be the way to achieve the next big leap forward, particularly on the research agenda. I support what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday—that this issue is not a matter only for world leaders, important though they are; it is a matter for every single person in the community, whether they be a world leader, a health Minister or an ordinary citizen. Everybody has a role to play.
	I shall start with the people who have dementia, along with their families and their carers. When we promote policy, do collaboration or talk about international research, we must constantly remind ourselves that the people with the disease and their carers and families are usually the most expert people in the system. Therefore, the services that we provide, the quality of care and the innovations we develop have to be shaped and guided by those people. We must empower them to make their voices heard in this debate. When we bring together our creativity, our imagination and the huge brain power in the research community, we must always bring to this issue, too, our own humanity. We must remember that people with dementia are valuable and loved human beings. If we can keep that at the forefront of our minds, we will make progress and be doing absolutely the right thing.
	During Question Time yesterday I mentioned a lady called Joy Watson. I met her a little while ago. She is only 55, but she has early-onset dementia. Her family
	was devastated. When she went into shops, she might be a little confused over her change or what she needed to order, and the shops—and sometimes the customers—would be irritated with her, tutting and asking her to hurry up. She took to wearing a badge, which she designed herself, saying “I have got Alzheimer’s; please be patient with me”. She should not need to do that. Nowadays there is a scheme—I think it is called the purple angel scheme, and Joy is promoting it—so that people can wear a purple angel on their T-shirts as a means of raising awareness in every single part of our community.
	In Salford, we have worked on this agenda for a number of years. We have just formed our dementia action alliance, with 30 organisations now committed to action plans to make us, I hope, the first dementia-friendly community in Greater Manchester. As well as health, education and housing bodies, we have the Lowry arts centre and our shopping centres included in the scheme. I think we have the first private-hire taxi firm in the country to be involved in this, Mainline Sevens taxis. It has trained 400 drivers and has an account system so that people with dementia do not have to fiddle with their money when they get in a taxi. All those groups are now dementia aware. That shows the really practical things that can be done.
	On the research side, I am delighted to say that tomorrow, Salford university will launch the Salford Institute for Dementia, bringing together the faculty of health and social care with departments dealing with the built environment, computers, IT, arts and media—showing the multidisciplinary approach that will apply. That group will draw together and disseminate research on living well with dementia. I think this is a fabulous academic development.

Madeleine Moon: I cannot say how much I admire my right hon. Friend’s championing of this cause. When it comes to universities, there are examples of research that have focused on ideas for prevention. We heard yesterday from Professor A. David Smith from Oxford about the vitamin B6 and B12 levels as a means of achieving this. Currently, it is not possible within the health service to have a test of homocysteine levels that would help to identify the problem. Could we not put that prevention in place; should we not be doing that now?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was horrified to learn yesterday that only 0.1% of research on dementia is spent on prevention. In every other area of public policy, such as education and social mobility, we are aware of the importance of investing in prevention, but in this area there is virtually no grant support, and that must change. I understand that in Norway and Sweden, tests for dementia are the norm. They are cheap once the investment has been made in the equipment, and the vitamin B12 research looks extremely promising. I hope that when the Minister responds he will say that that is something that our own national health service should take up.

Oliver Colvile: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the excellent work that is being done in Plymouth, not just at the university but, much more important, by the local authority and the Royal Navy at Devonport? They are taking a
	lead by ensuring that all their employees are aware of the dementia issue, and that, if they need time off, they can have it in order to look after their relatives.

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Plymouth, because it is one of the pioneers in this area. Plymouth, Torquay, Bradford and other towns all over the country want to ensure that dementia is not something shocking that we do not know how to deal with, and that everyone is dementia-friendly and aware. They are tackling the stigma, which is a huge issue. People do not like to talk about the fact that their families and friends are afflicted with this disease.
	The search for a cure is essential. No one wants to have dementia, and everyone wants to be able to cure it. However, at the G8 I want just as much importance to be ascribed to research on the quality of care. The Evington initiative, which is backed by a number of business leaders including Terry Leahy—who used to chair Tesco—and Sir Marc Bolland are putting their weight behind that initiative. They are asking two questions. First, how can we change the system so that it is driven by users and carers rather than simply by clinicians and producers? Secondly, how can we establish a good, rigorous evidence base in relation to therapeutic interventions, quality and consistency of care and tackling stigma, so that clinical commissioning groups can be confident that the services they are commissioning actually work?
	I think that the research is very exciting, but we are not likely to find a cure for 10, 15 or 20 years, and in the meantime 800,000 people are living with dementia. At present, there is virtually no evidence base relating to the quality of care. “Singing for the brain” is fantastic, but does it work, and if so, why does it work? Then there are the arts, the drama, and all the memory work that goes on. We need that rigorous evidence base, so that the commissioners can take the right packages off the shelf.

Debbie Abrahams: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Hazel Blears: I am afraid that I do not have enough time.
	We also need research on prevention. The Alzheimer’s Society is working on a system that helps care home staff to reduce the use of anti-psychotic drugs by intervening in other ways to deal with people’s behaviour. That system is being rolled out in 150 care homes, and has reduced the use of anti-psychotic drugs by 50%. It is saving money, and it is making a huge difference. The G8 presents us with a fabulous opportunity to press for further research. I do not want it to be a one-off: I hope that there will be another summit of this kind next year. I also hope that work will continue between now and the next summit. This issue is not going away—it will be with us for a long, long time—and it would be fabulous if we could secure that international collaboration.
	I invite the Minister to visit our university institute after we have launched it tomorrow, so that he can observe the fabulous work that is being done there and,
	perhaps, meet some of the people in Salford who are taking a whole systems approach that I think will prove helpful.
	Let me end by saying that we owe a duty to every single one of the people who have dementia or are caring for people with the condition. It is the worst thing in the world to lose the person with whom you once had a connection. We have an absolute duty to do whatever we can, here in the House and in our communities, to give those people support and help.

Richard Graham: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who has spoken so well and done so much work on this subject along with her colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). All three major parties now have at least one significant dementia champion to raise this important issue. I know that the Minister will enjoy responding to the debate, because he has covered a number of debates on the subject before. Much has been said on dementia, and much action has been taken. The right hon. Lady was right to mention the Prime Minister’s initiative and his championing of this issue. Many people are suffering as a result of dementia, not only those suffering directly from the disease, and there is still no cure, so it remains a significant challenge for science and society.
	I have just a few points to add to what has already been said. The Minister will recall that I led a debate recently in Westminster Hall on what was being done about dementia in Gloucestershire and on the ways in which I believed we had adopted best practice. However, a critical question is: do we really know what best practice is? How do we measure the quality of what is being done in our local hospitals and care services? How do we measure the contribution of organisations such as the Barnwood Trust, a mental health charity specialising in these conditions which we are lucky enough to have in our area?
	As the right hon. Lady said, it would be useful if the Minister could share his thoughts on a guide to best practice, not only for commissioners—although I agree that that is important—but for MPs. Representatives of the Gloucestershire family of NHS services recently told me in a meeting that they had received an award for the care and services they provided for old people in general and for dementia sufferers in particular. That was terrific news—I am always delighted when people win an award—but it would be useful to know what we are doing best, and what is being done better in different areas, so that we can have a nice, easy frame of reference. People could then see whether their area offered a four-star or a five-star dementia service, for example, and we could assess how we might attain a higher standard if we did certain things differently.

Debbie Abrahams: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, in addition to building up the evidence base through randomised controlled trials that establish a causal relationship between therapies and outcomes, some kind of action-based research would be appropriate? Such research could be carried out and interventions could be offered and evaluated while providing the service at
	the same time. It would be a case of learning as we went along. Does he agree that we need different approaches because of the scale of the issue that we are facing?

Richard Graham: I think I agree with the hon. Lady. Different things need to be tried. Singing and music were mentioned earlier. In my mother’s case, they were the last things she was able to relate to and enjoy before Alzheimer’s closed over her. So I agree that different things are always worth trying, and that is where the charities can play a role as well.
	My first question to the Minister is: could we have star ratings for dementia services and, if so, how would we identify and measure best practice? My second point relates to how we are using the Prime Minister’s initiative to get dementia on to the G8 summit agenda for the first time. We should work with other countries on this. A number of us have received briefings suggesting that the United States and France, among others, are also doing great things in dementia research. Should we not all be able to share our findings? Perhaps we could have what is known as a global inter-operative data sharing base, so that all the work being done by organisations such as Alzheimer’s Research UK could be shared, rather than being duplicated. Effort could then be spent on taking research forward, rather than replicating it.
	The aim of trying to join up what organisations around the world are doing is a key reason for the Prime Minister getting this topic on to the G8 summit agenda, and I hope that the result will be an international plan involving more pooling of thinking, research and ideas. I sense that science is beginning to feel more confident about finding solutions to this ghastly disease, and if the G8 summit can give an enormous turbo-boost to pooling research and getting closer to finding solutions, the actions of the Prime Minister and the Government will have been worth while, not only for the 800,000 people in this country who have dementia today but for the many millions who will suffer in the future.

Steve Rotheram: In my first speech in this House this year—I believe it was on 10 January when we debated dementia and mental health—I discussed my mother’s case. The debate was filled with passionate contributions from Members across the House, although I was particularly moved by the personal accounts from my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
	I also spoke of my pride that a decade after my mother’s passing the city of Liverpool earmarked 2013 as the year in which it would focus efforts on dementia awareness and promote innovative approaches initiated by organisations in our city. Our work complements the findings of the report from the G8 summit on dementia. Right across the Liverpool city region, our health care providers, arts organisations and academic institutions have embraced a collaborative approach to increase awareness of dementia, early diagnosis and patient-friendly treatment, with the mission being to make dementia everybody’s business. I stand in this House proud and confident that Liverpool is well on its way towards creating dementia-friendly environments in workplaces, public areas and communities.
	One of the most high-profile projects—the Prime Minister might like to bring it to the attention of G8 colleagues—is the National Museums Liverpool House of Memories project, which now has a staggering 1,000 participants. Since I spoke on the issue earlier in the year, the team, led by David Fleming, has developed its innovative approach even further, branching out into the housing sector, in partnership with local registered social landlords. In total, four north-west housing providers have joined together to fund a re-modelled initiative which has taken the House of Memories project—using art, dance, music and creativity—to 600 homes. That is set to be further expanded next year. I am pleased to report that the ambition of the House of Memories team knows no bounds. Despite our year of dementia finishing in just a few short weeks, the team already has an even more ambitious plan for 2014 to help dementia patients.
	I made it clear in January that I did not see any reason why the project running in Liverpool could not be extended across every region of the UK, so it is particularly pleasing to be informed that the Minister’s Department has confirmed that £135,000 will be awarded to take the House of Memories project to the midlands region in March next year, and I thank him for that. As if that were not enough, the team are even developing an app for iPhones and iPads on behalf of, and working with, dementia sufferers, which will also be launched next spring.
	The House of Memories is by no means the only successful project operational in Liverpool, so I make no apologies for bringing a number of other local initiatives to the attention of the House. The unique Sedgemoor specialist dementia support centre was opened in Norris Green, on the border of my constituency, in May, at a cost of £1.2 million. The centre features a high-tech, interactive 4D theatre, where people can immerse themselves in the sights, sounds and even the smells of the past, through old videos, cinema footage, photographs, music and even relevant scents, which trigger reaction and stimulate conversation.
	There have been more highlights of Liverpool’s year of dementia. Everton in the Community, the community arm of Everton football club, is performing reminiscence work with Mersey Care. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) mentioned universities, and Liverpool Hope university is providing a dementia centre of excellence, which is a physical location where members of the public, clinical services, charities, businesses and third sector organisations get the chance to meet and share expertise.
	I pay particular tribute to the React service in Liverpool, the personal care services, community support service and external day services. I also praise Age UK Liverpool, Telecare, Livability and CEDAS for the work they do. Discussions are at an advanced stage to refresh the city’s joint strategy for dementia and ensure that the dementia alliance is developed and fully operational for 2014.
	I urge the Minister to spend time with me, if he is going to Salford, to see first hand the differences that we are making on Merseyside. The G8 summit on dementia gives us the opportunity to push for more research into a whole host of dementias, and highlights the innovative approaches to tackle the condition—and in that Liverpool leads the way.

Paul Burstow: It is a great privilege to take part in this debate and to be presided over by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) on their tenacious pursuit of these issues and on ensuring that we have had two Back-Bench business debates on the subject in less than a year. That gives notice of the fact that this is an issue about which the House and its Members feel passionately and to which they want more attention paid.
	Last Thursday, I took part in a local dementia forum in my constituency, which was organised by the Sutton Alzheimer’s Society. It brought together a range of organisations to listen to and engage with people who are experiencing dementia—either as carers or as sufferers who have the diagnosis and are living with its consequences. That was an incredibly powerful experience. At the heart of this issue is how we ensure that people have a good life and maintain good relationships, because dementia can rob them of that. We need to think about how we can ensure that people, whether they be a professional, a carer or someone who is working in another part of the public or private services, understand and are aware of the issues about dementia. We need to build a community that is more friendly towards those who suffer from dementia. Good communication is at the heart of that. The one message that all of us who were speakers at the event got from both the carers and the people with dementia was to slow down. We were gabbling and talking at great pace, because we were trying to get across too much in too little time. With just over three minutes left, I will not manage to achieve that requirement now.
	I want to take a slightly different tack from the contributions we have heard so far and argue that the G8 summit on dementia needs to address the impact dementia will have on the development of low and middle-income nations across the planet. As Dr Margaret Chan, the director-general of the World Health Organisation, says:
	“The need for long-term care for people with dementia strains health and social care systems, and budgets. The catastrophic cost of care drives millions of households below the poverty line. The overwhelming number of people whose lives are altered by dementia, combined with the staggering economic burden on families and nations, makes dementia a public health priority.”
	That is why having a G8 summit on it is correct.
	We are living through an extraordinary time in human history. A revolution is taking place on this planet, which is remaking societies, the state and so much that we have taken for granted. It is really a revolution in terms of human survival. We are living longer, which is something that we should celebrate. It is a triumph of human ingenuity that is all too often portrayed as some sort of disaster. It is not a disaster, but something that we should celebrate.
	Let me put some numbers into my argument. In 2010 it was estimated that, across the world, 35.6 million people had Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias. That number will increase to 66 million by 2015 and to 115 million by 2050. The majority of that increase will not fall in the developed world; it will be in low and middle-income countries where more than 70% of people with dementia will be living by 2050.
	As I have said, the number of people with dementia in 2050 will rise to 115 million, but the number of people who will develop dementia worldwide between now and then is estimated to be 600 million, which is roughly one new case every four seconds. In the UK, the national dementia strategy, which, as we have heard, runs out next year, and the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge, on which I had the privilege of working when I was care Minister, recognise the challenge posed by dementia, that dementia is not a normal part of ageing and that concerted action is required.
	The G8 summit requires a focus that is not just about the developed world’s research spend; it must also understand the impact of dementia elsewhere in the world.

Oliver Colvile: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the stigma of dementia in black and ethnic minority communities? I recently took part in an inquiry in which it became apparent that that is an issue.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman’s point is spot on and leads me on to my next point about an example of research in India. It is estimated that in 2010 there were 3.7 million people with dementia in India, which will rise to more than 14 million by 2050. Approximately half those people will be over 75 and almost 2 million will be over 90. There is a serious lack of awareness about the issues in low and middle-income countries, especially those in Africa. Almost three quarters of people with dementia will live in those countries and that is why I want to ensure that the Minister, as he feeds back into the process of preparing for the summit, will make sure that such issues are on the table.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is bringing a new perspective to the debate and he has made me think about the commitments made on AIDS and HIV. We need only think how ambitious the world was in tackling HIV at a time when many of us thought that it was an irresolvable problem. The promises on retroviral drugs were hugely ambitious and the progress we have made has been tremendous. Will he join me in urging the Minister and Prime Minister to be just as ambition on this agenda as we were on HIV/AIDS?

Paul Burstow: As a number of us have made clear, the global scale of the challenge is such that it requires the galvanisation of a global response. The summit is a unique opportunity to do that, but it must have the reach and ambition that the right hon. Lady is talking about. It could take as its model the successful work that has been done so far on HIV.
	Although epidemiologists often say that the figures I am citing are undercounted, the disease is none the less regarded as the second-most burdensome chronic disease and, among all those with chronic non-communicable diseases, accounts for almost 12% of years lived with disability.
	In most developing countries, the problem with dementia is hidden. I have mentioned India, and the “Dementia India Report 2010” was published by the Alzheimer’s and Related Disorders Society of India, helped partly by funding from the UK Alzheimer’s Society. It has
	provided invaluable insight into the prevalence of the disease and ways in which India can respond to the challenge.
	Let me ask the Minister a couple of questions. The first is about the research spend. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford asked about the ambition of doubling that spend every five years, but it is not good enough for just our Government to do that. We need other Governments to agree to the same thing at the G8 summit. We need to know how much is being spent in the G8 on such things. There is no published figure—that is extraordinary—and when I tried to find a figure for the debate, I could not. We need a baseline to know whether we are making progress.
	This country’s leadership on such issues will be in doubt if we do not hear soon that the Government intend to have a new dementia strategy. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some indication of when that will take place. Finally, in having such an ambition on research, we need to learn from the journey that cancer has gone on. Cancer research has for many years had ambition, reach and strategy. We have an Institute of Cancer Research and it is time this country had the same for dementia. That could deliver such a big prize for all our citizens.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am delighted to speak in this debate on behalf of many of my constituents from all areas who have asked me to attend, listen and contribute. I will focus in particular on Wales and Wales and the G8, as well as on the importance of collaboration, but I want to thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), not only for securing the debate but for championing the cause continually over a number of years. I also join them in praising the Prime Minister for putting this front and centre of the G8 summit. It is a worthy ambition, but as the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam set out, doing so has raised aspirations over what will be delivered. I sometimes feel for the Minister because he repeatedly faces people saying that we must do more on treatment, care, prevention and research on many conditions, but putting dementia four square at the head of the Government’s ambitions for the G8 summit shows that there is a level of desire for some real outcomes, not least of which should be long-term strategy and the co-ordination of spending internationally to make the most of it and see what more can be put into the pot. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
	Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the ambition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles spoke about turning the spotlight on to AIDS and HIV in the 1980s and 1990s, which really did make an unprecedented step change because there was an international focus on treatment and care. Massive interventions were made in previous decades on cancer treatment, and they had the same effect. There is a desire across the international community, especially given the opportunity provided by the G8, to have that same impetus. It is not simply an issue of spending; it is an issue of real focus and relentless drive on everything from prevention to treatment, care and research.
	In Wales more than 45,000 people now have dementia, and that figure is forecast to increase to almost 60,000 by 2021. Hon. Members may be interested to know that in Wales only 38.5% have received formal diagnosis of their condition. That is lower than in other parts of the UK, which is interesting. There is good work going on within Wales. The Welsh Government published back in 2011 the national dementia vision for Wales, setting out their commitment to supporting research. The Welsh Government have also pledged to support research in dementia cause, cure and care. They offer funding opportunities to researchers who want to undertake research into dementia.
	In the light of my intervention on the Minister’s speech, what is he doing to ensure that knowledge is disseminated well not only internationally but in Wales and England and other regions of the UK, that best practice is shared, and that research collaboration is streamlined properly? What is being done to co-ordinate at a government level in different parts of the UK work on dementia priorities? It would be a tragedy in times of stretched spending if there was duplication and a waste of effort all the way from social care through to research and so on. Let us make sure that it is all lined up in the right way. That is what the G8 summit can do on the international agenda as well.

Philip Hollobone: I understand that around the world some $40 billion has been spent on dementia research, but all the drug trials have failed. The emphasis surely should be far more on prevention. Professor Smith, who was mentioned earlier, maintains that Alzheimer’s could be cut by a quarter. If he is right on that subject, that would mean massive savings on health care costs in Wales and across the rest of the country.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which was also touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles. It is a startling fact that 0.1% of funding goes into prevention. Surely there has to be greater emphasis on that, because the outcomes of prevention are so beneficial.
	I am sure that the Minister is aware of what is going on in Wales. The Welsh Government’s National Institute for Social Care and Health Research funds and manages the research activity in Wales. The total spend last year was £75.7 million, of which £3.54 million was spent on biomedical research project funding. Just over 15% of the budget was awarded to researchers working on projects directly relevant to neurology research, including mental health. The same organisation awarded the Wales dementias and neurodegenerative diseases research network £743,000 over five years for its research. It is about knowing what is going on not only in Wales and different parts of the UK, but internationally so that we can co-ordinate and make the optimum use of regional, national and international spend on prevention, care, treatment and research.
	My final point—it is probably one for another debate—is that we cannot divorce the strategic matters from the operational ones, and that means looking at the huge stretch in social care. There are real and intense pressures on social care, and not just on resourcing, but on staffing, staffing expertise and the necessary reform of long-term social care funding. That is probably a subject
	for another day, but the reality is that there are pressures on the ground affecting many people with different types of dementia and their families. There is real anxiety.

Hazel Blears: I appreciate that the debate is about the G8, but does my hon. Friend share my concern that the integrated transformation fund, the £3.8 billion that is supposed to relieve some of those pressures, brings together resources that are already being spent by local government and the NHS, so it is not actually new funding? Perhaps the Minister will address that when he responds to the debate.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I share that concern and hope that the Minister will turn his attention to it briefly. It is a major concern for the organisations and individuals out there.
	In conclusion, I commend the Prime Minister for taking this initiative forward with the G8. It is a golden opportunity. Let us not miss it. Let us reach our ambition and our aspiration.

Sarah Newton: I, too, congratulate the hon. Members who secured the debate on their relentless tenacity, because they always provide us with opportunities to talk about this incredibly important issue. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that it is one of the largest public health challenges facing the world in the 21st century.
	Although I would love to take a few minutes to celebrate the work I have seen in my constituency, with constituents responding so positively to the Prime Minister’s challenge to come together as a community of health professionals, voluntary sector organisations and businesses to make it a very friendly place to live in, and to celebrate many of the improvements in the local NHS and care sector, I want to draw us back, because I will probably be the last Back-Bench Member to speak, to the particular challenges and opportunities that the G8 summit presents. I will recap on the aims of the summit, because it is very much about the research. They are to identify and agree new international approaches to dementia research; to help break down barriers within and between companies, researchers and clinicians; and to secure the type of collaboration and co-operation that he been mentioned so far.
	I will focus on what more we can do on the science. The Government have committed to spending a lot more money, and we have heard about other countries committing considerable sums of money to research, but, as in so many other areas, it is about more than just the money. It will be vital at the summit to listen to the expert evidence that will be considered from clinicians, the pharmaceutical industry and researchers and to look at what the barriers are to better and more effective use of the funds available for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of dementia.

Steve Rotheram: The hon. Lady is of course absolutely right that the science is the most important part of this, but, as I mentioned, there are also non-pharmaceutical interventions that are equally important to people who are suffering until, I hope, we can find the cure that we would all like to see.

Sarah Newton: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Hon. Members ought to note that if they wish to hear what the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman have to say about the debate, they should not take any further interventions.

Sarah Newton: I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee, and I am delighted that my Chairman, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), is here and has intervened. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to some excellent work that our Committee has been doing this year. I think that some of the reports we have published will help him to prepare for the summit. We undertook a very good investigation into clinical trials and also produced a report called “Bridging the valley of death”. Both reports highlighted a very significant issue facing research, not only in the UK but globally.
	As Members will know, we have an absolutely world-class science base in our country. The main challenge facing it is to overcome regulatory environments, many of which are international, to enable it to take its first-class research across the valley of death and into the development of ways of diagnosing dementia and therapies for treating it. It is very important to learn the lessons from our very extensive inquiries to enable more of this research to be commercially developed in order to find its way into the marketplace.

Andrew Miller: Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful if the Minister could revisit the Government’s response to our inquiry on clinical trials, because we could then be a world leader and show real leadership at the summit?

Sarah Newton: Only yesterday, we took evidence from Professor Collinge from University College London and Professor Ironside from Edinburgh, who are leaders in the field of degenerative brain disease. They provided us with even more compelling evidence of the increasing difficulties of getting from the research stage to being able to secure enough commitment from the pharmaceutical industry and other bodies that fund research into developing the science into diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. They reported that the pharmaceutical industry, which is a massive investor in research and its outcomes, is getting far more risk-averse and, as a result, is putting many more burdens on to the research of scientists in universities—burdens that they are not really capable of taking on board. The G8’s focus on getting the companies and clinicians, as well as researchers, around the table to look at the pathways from the science into scaleable, commercialised solutions is vitally important.
	It is important that we do this not only in our own country but internationally, because most of the regulations are international. Where there is not international agreement, that in itself becomes a barrier to research and its commercialisation. The work done at the G8 will enable there to be much larger markets, meaning that very many more people will be helped and that money will flow into the research and make it more widely available.
	The transcripts from our findings yesterday will be available in a couple of days’ time. That should give the Minister a good opportunity to look at the evidence we
	were given by those very eminent researchers, who are undertaking research into prions, as well as looking into developments on variant CJD, which is a form of dementia, and how that links to other types of dementia such as Alzheimer’s. We need that sort of joining up across the process to enable diagnostic and preventive procedures, and therapies, to be developed. All the various scientists—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady heard me say that if Members wished to hear the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman there should be no further interventions. She took a further intervention and she will have to conclude very quickly.

Sarah Newton: My last point is to urge the Minister to look to ensure at the G8 that the various scientists and the various disciplines work together.

Liz Kendall: I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is the first time I have spoken since you were elected. I also warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on securing this really important debate. I am sorry that some Members have not had more of a chance to speak, because I know that they feel passionately about the subject.
	Like other hon. Members, I welcome the G8 summit on dementia. It is important to be hosting the first summit dedicated to dementia when countries are facing so many other issues. It is also right because the ageing population, which includes an increasing number of people with dementia, is one of the biggest immediate and long-term challenges facing both this country and the world. Dementia already affects more than 800,000 people in the UK and that figure is set to rise to 2 million by 2050. It is estimated that more than 115 million people worldwide will be living with dementia in 40 years’ time.
	Anyone whose family has experience of dementia will know how devastating the condition can be. It is therefore right that the G8 summit and the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge seek to boost national and international efforts on clinical research. Developing effective drugs and treatments is essential if we are to offer hope to people that something can be done about this terrible disease.
	If we are going to address the challenge of dementia, we must face up to the equally important challenge of improving the quality of dementia care. We need to ensure that we do not neglect research into the support and services that aim to prevent the onset of dementia in the first place, which was something that many hon. Members spoke about. Although there is no certain way to prevent dementia, we know that a healthy lifestyle can lower people’s risk of getting not only dementia, but lots of other diseases, when they get older. Eating well, exercising regularly and stopping smoking may not grab the headlines in the same way as discovering a new job, nor attract research funding from institutions and companies, but ultimately they will be key to meeting the dementia challenge in the future. I hope that we will one day have a G8 summit on precisely those issues.
	I want to focus my brief comments on the crucial matter of the quality of dementia care because, for my constituents and for people in my family and my friends’ families, the quality of care they receive, and the problems they have with it, represent the biggest challenge. People with dementia and their family carers are clear about what makes good dementia care. They want joined-up services and support so that they do not have to battle different parts of the system. They want care that is personalised to their individual needs. The vast majority of people with dementia want to stay living independently in their own homes for as long as possible, and families want to help to look after their loved ones as long as they get the right help and support.
	Like many hon. Members, I have seen lots of inspiring examples of people working to improve care for people with dementia: day centres that provide stimulating activities such as gardening, cooking, singing and music; care homes that understand that they have to ask the families of people with severe dementia what kind of care and support they need, because those people’s memory has been taken from them; hospitals that involve families by asking them what food and activities their relative wants and needs; and, crucially, higher education institutions such as the university of Worcester, which I recently visited and is transforming staff training by getting patients to interview people who want to be student nurses, and then to develop and actually give the course, because how can NHS and social care staff know what dementia patients really need if they have not been trained in the first place?
	Our loved ones will not get the quality of care we all want for them within a malnourished and depleted social care system. In fact, I think that the growing crisis in social care is the biggest threat to people suffering from dementia and the largest challenge we face. Council budgets have been under pressure for many years, but almost £2 billion has been cut from local authority budgets for older people’s social care since the Government came to power. Fewer people are getting the up-front care that they need to stay living at home. Home care visits have been shortened to barely 15 minutes, which is not enough time to get a vulnerable person with dementia up, washed, dressed and fed.
	Care workers do an incredibly important job, but they are struggling. They are not paid even the minimum wage, let alone the living wage, and they are employed on zero-hours contracts. That is bad not just for people with dementia, but for taxpayers, because if those with dementia do not get the help and care they need so that they can live at home, they end up in residential or hospital care, which costs taxpayers more.
	I want to ask about the Government’s plans because it is important that we are clear about them. I am sure that the Minister will talk about their plan to integrate services, but I want to echo a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles. The integration transformation fund is not new money, but existing resources of £1.9 billion from clinical commission groups, with the rest coming from existing local council budgets. I think that £3.8 billion is a really unambitious amount of funding in the context of a total NHS and social care budget of £120 billion. We need the far bigger and bolder response of the full integration of NHS and social care budgets if we are to meet the challenge of our ageing population and dementia.
	The G8 summit and the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge are welcome—they build on the previous Government’s approach—but the challenge needs to focus on improving the quality of care and research into prevention. I echo the important point made by hon. Members about the need for a commitment to renew the previous Government’s national dementia challenge, which expires at the end of next year, and the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge, which ends in 2015. I hope that the Minister will give such a commitment so that we can have the long-term strategy across all areas that we desperately need.

Norman Lamb: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I offer you my congratulations on your election, as other hon. Members have.
	I find myself in a bit of an invidious situation, because it will be impossible for me to do justice to this very impressive debate in which hon. Members on both sides of the House made impassioned and effective speeches. However, I undertake to write to them to ensure that I pick up all their points. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on her excellent introduction to the debate, as well as on securing it in the first place.
	I have a few scatter-gun points. I would be absolutely delighted to go to Salford. I think that I am already committed to going to see the fantastic House of Memories in Liverpool, so it would be good to spend time in Salford with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and in Liverpool with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). I was interested to hear about the Science and Technology Committee’s impressive work and conclusions, which I clearly need to look at in more detail.
	It is good to have real consensus in the House about the challenge that we face and what we need to do. There has rightly been praise from both sides for the Prime Minister’s identification of dementia as something that deserves his particular attention and as a matter for a summit this December during our presidency of the G8. The summit will elevate the whole issue to the global stage in just the right way.
	The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles was absolutely right to say that, in everything we do, people with dementia and their families ought to be absolutely first and foremost in our minds. It is critical to listen to them and to ensure that we act on their needs.
	Someone around the world is diagnosed with dementia every four seconds. More than 35 million people have it, and as people live longer than ever, that number is set to double every 20 years. Some 58% of those people live in low and middle-income countries, and the proportion is projected to rise to 71% by 2050. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) was absolutely right to identify the challenge in the developing world. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles was right that dementia needs to be seen as something that requires real ambition on the same scale as that on HIV/AIDS.
	Especially during the later stages of dementia, when people’s behaviour can be challenging and extraordinarily distressing for their loved ones, families face a huge
	emotional and practical burden. We cannot ignore the pressure on our health and care system. Incidentally, the £3.8 billion fund that has been mentioned comes from both the health system and care systems. The intention is to consolidate resources as effectively as possible. Our approach represents a clear shift from repair to prevention, and all hon. Members who spoke recognised the importance of focusing on prevention.
	The shadow Minister says that she wants more ambition. When I met adult social care directors, I was struck by how many were considering pooling the whole of their budgets—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the shadow Minister can hear what I am saying with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) sitting by her side, but my point is that there is a great deal of ambition out there.
	Dementia is a major priority for the Government. The Prime Minister launched his challenge last year and he is now getting the G8 to focus on the condition. As part of our G8 presidency, the UK is hosting a summit on 11 December that will bring together health and science Ministers, the OECD, the World Health Organisation, expert researchers, pharmaceutical leaders and representatives of civil society.
	There are short, medium and long-term priorities for dealing with dementia, and the first priority is to prevent it, as hon. Members have said. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) intervened to make a point about the importance of understanding risk factors. There is much more that we can do to prevent dementia in the first place, so gaining that understanding is critical.
	The second priority is to delay the onset of symptoms and to maintain cognitive function. The third is to improve care and support for people who are affected by dementia and their carers. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford made that point strongly and spoke about the value of telecare in helping people to remain independent. With first-class care and medical treatment, someone with dementia can still find purpose and pleasure in life, as can their loved ones, which is very important.
	Research and innovation are critical, so I am pleased that biopharmaceuticals and other industries will be represented at the G8 summit. We need to explore how we can align our research priorities and stimulate innovation in all sectors. By the end of the summit, I hope that we will have reached two agreements: a declaration that demonstrates the extent of our shared commitment and a communiqué that outlines a plan for global action. We want to ensure that there is a legacy and that work continues beyond the summit. This must be the start, not the end. We are working with the WHO, the OECD and other partners to develop the plan.
	The summit is an enormous opportunity to pool global resources and bring them to bear on the extraordinary challenge that we face. Together, I think that we can make a real difference.

Tracey Crouch: We have had a fantastic debate, but I would expect nothing less, given that this is the second debate that we have had on dementia in the Chamber. Members’ contributions on the subject, which is important to our constituents, are always incredibly passionate and varied.
	The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) put it much better than I could by saying that we must always remember that there is a person at the centre of the debate. When we talk about global economic figures, we are talking about how we can best help somebody who is suffering from this debilitating, devastating disease and their family who are there to support them.
	The Minister has heard the passion of the Members who spoke today. They have demonstrated how important this issue is to our constituents, communities and society. They have also set out the economic factors. He should go back to his Department and think carefully about how the UK should take forward its dementia strategy, which is still not forthcoming beyond 2014. We must be clear that being a global leader on this issue is about not only holding a G8 summit, but practising what we are saying back at home. The Prime Minister has the support of the House in taking this matter to the G8 summit and we all wish him well as he does so.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the G8 summit on dementia.

MIX 96 (DIGITAL RADIO SWITCHOVER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the subject of what is in fact our local radio station, Mix 96, and the digital switchover. As a Bucks Member of Parliament it is good to have the opportunity to raise with a colleague such as you an issue that is not HS2, but concerns a successful local business that provides news and information, supports local charities, promotes local businesses, advertises job vacancies, and even lists school closures during the winter—oh, and before I forget, it also plays great music.
	Mix 96 approached me because it is concerned about the switchover. We all know that small local stations, whether licensed by Ofcom as commercial or community stations, lie at the heart of communities up and down the country and hold a special place in the hearts of millions of consumers. However, local radio cannot stand apart from consumer trends. It is worth remembering that, although levels of music listening have never been greater, a large proportion of the listening done by those consumers who are most attractive to advertisers is not done through radio—whether BBC, commercial, analogue or digital— but is instead selected from thousands of people’s own MP3 tracks, or from an even bigger library ready to stream courtesy of programmes such as Spotify.
	There is no doubt that the market is changing, and although radio still plays a central role in that, and indeed remains the most personal of media, in some cases people are moving from analogue to digital—whether or not to digital audio broadcasting—to listening online or through smartphone apps. Understandably, that has left small local stations such as Mix 96 feeling worried.

Henry Bellingham: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has secured this debate. Is she aware of the local radio station, KLFM, in my constituency that has been doing a phenomenal job? It is the local radio station to listen to across my constituency in factories and places of work. Does she agree that these changes should be consumer-led, and that there should be an independent analysis of the cost?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I will come to that later in my speech. I am glad to welcome the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) to the Front Bench. His constituency is within the footprint of Mix 96 and he is keen to support this debate.
	For a national station, the cost of broadcasting in DAB need not be very different from broadcasting in analogue. For a small local station, however, with a single FM transmitter, the cost of broadcasting on a local DAB multiplex with half a dozen transmitters could well be unaffordable, especially while it is still also paying to broadcast on FM. If small stations made that leap to DAB, they would invariably find that they were paying for coverage far greater than they had on FM, whether they wanted it or not. DAB is fundamentally
	the wrong platform for genuinely local radio stations such as Mix 96, which is a hugely popular and commercially successful station. The geographical areas that DAB multiplexes cover are significantly greater—often two to 10 times greater—than those areas covered by many local FM-operated stations.

Tim Loughton: I would be grateful if I could join the queue to plug a local radio station. Splash FM serves the Worthing part of the coastal area, and the point my right hon. Friend has made about increasing geographical coverage would mean that it would pay a lot of money to broadcast to the sea, or perhaps to France. That is of no benefit to my constituents or local people who want the excellent local news and entertainment that local radio stations such as Splash FM provide.

Cheryl Gillan: I am glad my hon. Friend had the opportunity to intervene, and I hope that several other colleagues will do so because they feel so passionately about the issue. Sadly, I am old enough to remember Radio Caroline, when broadcasting to the sea was an important part of building the culture of listening to the radio. We take my hon. Friend’s point, however, because from the perspective of Splash FM, that money would effectively be wasted.
	As hon. Members know, the role played by local radio stations is a considerable one. As things stand, the Government are forcing many of them to change their editorial areas out of all recognition. It strikes me that forcing a breaking of that editorial link between the local community and its radio station flies in the face of the Government’s localism and big society agenda.

Julian Sturdy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this important debate. As she rightly says, independent radio stations such as Minster FM play an important role in our local communities. We need that platform to allow local community radio stations to continue, because it must be about listener choice.

Cheryl Gillan: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That an Adjournment debate at 5 o’clock on a Thursday afternoon has attracted so many hon. Members, when, to be fair, most of our colleagues will be in their cars listening to their radio stations, is a measure of how popular such stations are.

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. She is right that many of our colleagues would like to be here to contribute but cannot because they are driving to their constituencies. Does she agree that it would be great if the Minister could agree to meet a wider group of colleagues who would like to stick up for stations such as—

Edward Vaizey: Name your station!

Sarah Newton: Pirate FM.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister’s sedentary intervention to challenge my hon. Friend to name her station means that he is not entirely unaware of the commercial
	opportunities presented by the debate. It is a shame that more of our colleagues cannot take advantage of it, but, sadly, such debates come at the end of the day in the House. The fact that it is taking place at drive time because we finish so early on a Thursday is a happy occurrence.

Sharon Hodgson: The right hon. Lady mentions drive time. Sun FM in Sunderland, my local radio station, gives out the best traffic and travel news. Local stations provide another service during bad weather: they let us know whether our schools will be open or closed. That information will be unavailable from national radio stations.

Cheryl Gillan: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. We are coming up to the winter months. That service is invaluable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury will attest, for parents taking children to schools in Buckinghamshire, knowing when schools are open or closed is an essential service.

Andrew Bingham: I do not wish to buck the trend. My local radio station, High Peak Radio, is vital for such information, particularly as winter approaches. We do not have a digital signal in the High Peak—I could go on at great length about that to the Minister. If people move to DAB, FM will be forgotten. It will still be there, but people will have their radios on DAB and not flick back to FM to listen to their local station, and local stations will be starved out, because radios do not have remote controls for channel flicking like televisions do.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister should take on board the fact that, so far, DAB has not been designed with small stations and their communities in mind.

Iain Stewart: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend can pick up MKFM in her part of Buckinghamshire. Despite its name, it broadcasts on DAB. It is an excellent local community station that aspires to broadcast on FM. I hope that the Minister is able to give some clarity on the timetable for digital switchover, so that stations such as MKFM can plan for the future with certainty.

Cheryl Gillan: I was pleased that, early this year, the Minister provided certainty to some small stations by listing those that would be permitted to stay on FM. That removes any requirement for those stations to pay to broadcast on FM and DAB, but a cost-effective digital solution for small stations still needs to be identified. Otherwise, the stations hon. Members have mentioned could face extinction, because advertisers might, at some point, believe that it is not worth paying to reach those who continue to listen to FM stations.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. Given the size of my constituency, I have two local radio stations to plug: The Bay covers Morecambe bay and Radio Wave in Fleetwood covers the Fylde coast. What happened to the Conservative principle of
	gradualism? Why this sudden move when, as I understand it, only 15% of radios are digital and the market has gone down recently?

Cheryl Gillan: We can always prove everything with statistics, but that statistic—that the rate of purchase of digital radios has decreased—was certainly put to me and there is no doubt about that. At the same time, I want to acknowledge how advanced the good companies are that provide digital technology services: I think that there are British components in 45% of digital broadcasting devices around the world. However, the hon. Gentleman is right.
	Even while FM remains commercially viable, there is a worrying lack of certainty from Ofcom on how long those stations’ analogue licences would last. It is widely expected that the Minister will soon confirm—I have no idea whether he will—the switchover to digital radio, but he needs to address seriously the concerns of our local stations. Although they will not be required to upgrade from FM to DAB, they need a cost-effective option to do so when the time is right for them.
	A private company, with the blessing of Ofcom, ran a recent trial on a proposed DAB solution for small stations, but that did not provide a proven solution for local broadcasters such as Mix 96. I hope, therefore, that the Minister is not going to rely on that example to bolster his case. Perhaps he could encourage Ofcom to fund further trials as soon as possible, as I understand that there are frequency, software, regulatory and signal delivery issues that make the solution from that trial a poor and inadequate replacement.
	The Minister should ask Ofcom to provide small stations with greater certainty regarding the duration of their FM licences. If the Minister can assuage the concerns of small stations such as Mix 96 and say that there will be a cost-effective place for them in radio’s digital future, he can provide the certainty on digital radio switchover that the industry as a whole is looking for. It is important that the transition to digital is, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, consumer-led and carefully managed. If it is mishandled by his Department, he will incur the anger of consumers who will suddenly find that they will have to find hundreds of pounds to upgrade their car radios and household sets simply to listen to the radio.
	Two out of three radios purchased in the UK today are not DAB and less than 10% of vehicles have a DAB radio. As 21% of radio listening happens in cars, and, as it stands, DAB is not available even on smartphones or mobile phones in the UK, a lot of people would be affected by the plans as presently proposed. As it is, I understand that the Minister receives more complaints about DAB radio than anything else, while the existing FM radio transmission system achieves 99% UK population coverage and is both robust and cost effective. I understand that there is no proposed alternative use for the FM radio spectrum. There is, therefore, no digital dividend to be gained by the Government. I hope the Minister will address that point.
	I want to make it clear that this is not about cancelling the digital programme for radio; it is about finding a solution that protects and accommodates our small local radio stations. Many more points could be made, but I hope that the Minister now has the flavour of a
	widespread problem and will respond with positive news for Splash FM, Minster FM, KLFM, Sun FM, Pirate FM, High Peak Radio, MKFM, The Bay, Radio Wave—I hope I have not missed anybody’s radio station—and our very own Mix 96 and all their loyal listeners, our constituents and all my colleagues who have come here today to represent similar views from around the country. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful for the chance to respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, given your strong interest in Mix 96, and as we are debating a digital subject, I hope you will not take it amiss if I say how brilliant your speech was yesterday to the Hansard Society in your approach to digital politics in the 21st century. I also welcome to the Front Bench the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who also represents Mix 96. Sadly, he must remain silent, but I suspect, were he able to speak, he would echo many of the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham.
	I thank others who have contributed: my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy),representing Minster FM; my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), representing KLFM; my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), representing Splash FM; my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), representing Pirate FM; the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), representing Sun FM; my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), representing High Peak radio; my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), representing MKFM; and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), representing The Bay and Radio Wave; and me, representing Jack FM.
	I am delighted to be here talking about this subject. Whenever we debate local newspapers, hon. Members get a chance to plug theirs, and I suspect that this debate will be played on local radio stations up and down the land. I think, however, that my right hon. Friend slightly missed a trick. I thought she was going to suggest that we scrap High Speed 2 and spend all the money on rolling out digital radio, but I am pleased—

Cheryl Gillan: rose—

Edward Vaizey: Wait, the joke’s coming. I am pleased that I am not the Minister for HS2, because I found my right hon. Friend’s argument on digital radio so persuasive that were I that Minister, I would probably collapse in the face of this Adjournment debate.

Cheryl Gillan: I encourage the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), not to remain silent on the subject of HS2, but to inform the Minister of our views in Buckinghamshire about that particular project. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy and for taking this matter very seriously, because these radio stations are close to all our hearts.

Edward Vaizey: And let me continue in that vein by mentioning another silent hon. Friend, our Whip, who represents Spike FM.

Claire Perry: Spire FM.

Edward Vaizey: I am so sorry. Her writing is appalling, Mr Speaker.

Tracey Crouch: The Minister briefly mentioned local newspapers, and I would like to add that KMFM, run by the Kent Messenger Group, is incredibly concerned about these proposals, not least with its relationships with advertisers and commercial interests being as difficult as they are.

Edward Vaizey: The point is taken.
	I take this issue very seriously, being a passionate radio listener myself. We have 1 billion hours of radio listening a week, and it was clear to me when I became Minister that people took their radio listening very seriously; they are passionate about it. The last Government left us with an intent to get to radio switchover, but no plan to reach it. The key criterion was that digital radio’s share of the listening figures should be at least 50% before we set out the timetable for switchover. I made it clear in my first speech on this subject as Minister that I would be led by the consumer, and that is what I mean when I say I agree with the critique of digital radio by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I will do nothing on switchover unless I am bringing radio listeners with me.
	To get to a stage where we can consider switchover, we have put together a digital radio action plan, ably led by Digital Radio UK and its superb chief executive, Ford Ennals, and his team, including, in particular, Jane Ostler and Laurence Harrison. Substantial progress has been made. I note what my right hon. Friend said about wanting not to scrap digital radio, but to support its roll-out, while also securing a future for local radio stations. I will come to local radio in a moment, but first I will update her on our progress.
	We have taken local radio coverage, be it for local BBC stations or commercial stations, to about 72% and national coverage—effectively BBC radio stations 1 to 5—up to 94%, and this year we launched commercial radio digital services in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, roughly half of all new cars, which are vital to this, have digital installed as standard, and in the last year almost 900,000 cars sold had digital radio in them.
	This is a good news story for the UK economy, too. We account for about 50% of the global digital radio market. That means real opportunities for British businesses such as Roberts, Revo and Pure—in Kings Langley, not far from my right hon. Friend’s constituency.
	It is worth pointing out that we are not alone, and the Minister for Europe will take an interest in what I have to say. Norway and Denmark have already set dates for switchover—2017 and 2019 respectively—and there has been more progress following the launch of national digital services in Germany in 2011 and the Netherlands this year, which has a target switchover date of 2023. Other European markets, including Italy, France, Poland, Sweden, Austria and the Czech Republic are also looking into it. Digital radio is now reaching the Asia Pacific region, where Australia is taking a lead and DAB penetration has already reached 16%.

Andrew Bingham: As chairman of the all-party group on commercial radio, I am greatly interested in this debate and to hear about digital radio being extended to all the good burghers of Europe, but I would like to make a plea to have it in High Peak, which has very little in the way of a digital radio signal at all.

Edward Vaizey: That brings me neatly on to my next point. I am due to make a major speech about the future of digital radio in the middle of December, when I hope to address particular concerns about coverage. Let me repeat, however, that when it comes to the timetable and the setting of dates, we have always been clear that these will be led by the radio listener. There will be no switchover until the majority of listening is digital. It is clear that we are not there yet, and it will certainly not happen within the time frame that concerns my right hon. Friend. While good progress has been made, with the number of adults with access to a DAB digital radio up 10% year on year and places like London reaching 40%, we need to make more progress.
	Let me deal with what my right hon. Friend said about Mix 96 and what other hon. Members have said about their own local commercial and community stations. I am a huge fan of local commercial and community radio. In fact, community radio was brought into being by the last Government; I think it has been a massive success story, as are independent local radio stations. Ofcom’s research shows that local radio still holds value for listeners: it is important and valued. Although some measures have allowed greater networking between local radio stations, we still require local programming both at peak time and outside it. Mix 96 is part of the larger radio group. In fact, it is listed as one of the100 best companies to work for by The Sunday Times. Its concerns are well known to us, and they come not just from UKRD, but from UTV and others.
	As for securing a digital future for local commercial and community stations, let me first make it clear that we have never said that we require small stations to go over to digital. We have always said that if and when there is a switchover, we would maintain their presence on FM. It is also true that FM can work in tandem with DAB, as AM has with FM for many years. Many of the manufacturers of DAB radios have agreed a minimum specification, which includes FM. However, I take on board the point—I think it was made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), who talked about remote-controlled radios—that even where we have an FM-DAB station, switching between FM and DAB can be complicated. We are going to see more sets that switch seamlessly as the FM and DAB buttons are pressed, but that does not mean that we do not have to look for a potential solution for local commercial radio to get on to DAB at a cost it can afford.

Sharon Hodgson: The Minister mentioned that about 50% of new cars have DAB digital radios fitted as standard. Is he aware, however, that the figure for cars currently on the road is only about 5%? Irrespective of whether the facility for switching between DAB and FM happens, it would not help any of the cars currently on the road.

Edward Vaizey: I totally understand the hon. Lady’s point. First, as the timetable moves towards full coverage of digital radio, we will see what is known as the car park
	being refreshed over a number of years. It is also the case that the ability to convert an FM radio in a car with a digital converter is becoming much easier and cheaper. Technology will have a solution, but I take her point.
	Let me say something about the business of transferring community and local commercial radio to DAB. I said to my officials, and to Ofcom, that I wanted to find a cost-effective route to digital broadcasting for our local stations. Ofcom has made progress—to which my right hon. Friend alluded, although she rightly pointed out that this was an early initiative and that more work needed to be done. It has developed a new approach to small-scale, low-power digital transmission, using open-source software which makes it possible to get on to the local multiplex using an existing FM antenna. That approach was developed initially by Rashid Mustapha, an engineer working at Ofcom, and it must be a brilliant solution, because I do not normally have an opportunity to name people who work at Ofcom during a debate. It has been tested in Brighton with the support of Daniel Nathan of Juice FM. The initial results are promising, and I hope that smaller stations that are enthusiastic about digital will get behind the work.

Cheryl Gillan: As the Minister knows, we now use new technology even in the Chamber. I have just received a tweet which says:
	“Please mention community radio who have no chance of affording digital transmission costs…never mind the listener.”
	Perhaps the Minister could take up that point.

Edward Vaizey: This is almost unheard of, but I have left my mobile phone in my office, so I have not been able to keep up with those who have been tweeting on the debate. However, I advise the tweeter who tweeted to use a piece of old technology called the ear to listen to what I have to say.
	I have already mentioned community radio about eight times today. I have said again and again that I am a fan of both community and local independent commercial radio. It is incredibly difficult to run a successful local independent radio station. The people who run them are not rolling in money, or printing money; even those
	who run local commercial stations are almost running a community service. I met a man who runs one of those stations in Manchester, and he said that he found it tough going. I recently visited a community radio station in Swindon, which is supported by hundreds of volunteers and which makes a huge and vital contribution to the community there. I give equal weight to community radio and local commercial radio in my search for a solution.The key is the FM antenna, which those radio stations will have because they broadcast on FM, along with the ability to use software to convert it to a digital antenna.
	I have taken the debate at a gallop because I was not sure whether I would have enough time both to get my jokes in and to respond to the points made by my right hon. Friend. Let me now take up the offer from my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. If the meeting that she proposes will be as good-natured and well informed as this debate, I relish the prospect. We might even find time to meet—along with Members in all parts of the House, I should add—on a Friday, when the House is debating European matters.
	I am a fan of digital radio, and I think that it is the future, but my criteria have always been about coverage. We want digital radio to have the same coverage as FM. This is about the consumer, otherwise known as the radio listener. I want to bring the listeners with us, so that they will effectively have converted themselves to digital radio. That means cheap digital radios, which are now on the market. It means cheap car conversions, which are becoming cheaper all the time. It means digital radios being fitted as standard in new cars. It means good content, like that of Radio 6 Music, the first digital radio station to reach more than 1 million listeners. Those are our criteria.
	We will not be pushed into a switchover date; we will not get ahead of the radio listener; and we will continue to listen to well-informed, passionate colleagues such as my right hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for calling this excellent debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.